April 22, 2019

"Democrats are singularly obsessed with finding something they can use to damage the President politically."

Says the lawsuit Trump has filed against House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah E. Cummings to block congressional subpoena of his financial records, WaPo reports.

The second-highest-rated comment at the link quotes what I quoted and says: "And if he didn't cheat on a regular basis, he'd have no worry."

Hating Trump has taken precedence over fundamental liberal values, and the shallowness of the belief in those values is revealed in the way people don't even notice what they are subordinating to their... singular obsession.

157 comments:

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Hillary Clinton revenge porn. Funny, she is the real criminal.

MadisonMan said...

And so many Democrats have drunk the Kool-Aid. Whatever happened to sober reflection and independent thought?

Rick said...

Hating Trump has taken precedence over fundamental liberal values,

Not true. The people in question don't have fundamental liberal values and have not for quite some time. They evolved decades ago.

Henry said...

Democrats are singularly obsessed with finding something they can use to damage the President politically.

Isn't that what political parties are supposed to do?

I draw attention to the word politically.

If the word was "criminally" or "personally", that might be worth reflection.

Or is the "singularity" that's the problem.

Nobody said...

They don’t even bother to ask themselves “Are we the baddies?” They are so certain of “liberalism ├╝ber alles.” If you asked them if the ends justify the means, they would wonder why you asked them such a silly question. Of course they do! This is the one true faith of liberalism we are talking about!

buwaya said...

"Liberal values" have been gone for decades now.
They have been, at best, a pose for a generation.
The current, rising generation of your ruling class has abandoned even the pose.
They are depraved, but at least no longer hypocritical.

Nobody said...

Isn't that what political parties are supposed to do?

So fishing expiditions, misuse of the NSA, CIA, FBI, and DoJ, FEC, IRS, that’s all OK because “that’s what political parties are supposed to do?”

I know you like to be contrary, but do you really want to live in a country run by wannabee Stalinists?

stevew said...

The refrain of despots and tyrants everywhere: if you didn't do anything wrong you don't have anything to worry about by cooperating.

rhhardin said...

Trump knows he's not guilty so anything he did to end the collusion investigation was not to avoid being discovered colluding. Therefore rather he's trying to get the hysteria off his back.

Obama and his friends would be the opposite, if you investigated them.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Rachel Maddow is paid 10 million a year to provide hivemind collective correct thoughts. "We have him now!" with arms waiving, is the new religion.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Political obsession blinds people to their own bad motives. To paraphrase Lincoln, they can only fool themselves for so long before the people they wish to lead see them as the Fools all along.

Jersey Fled said...

One of these days the Democrats will,wake up and realize Trump is winning alot of court victories protecting the power of the Presidency, all as a result of their overreaching.

Freder Frederson said...

Every President since nixon has released his taxes. Why is trump special especially with the bullshit excuse he has given for not releasing them

Shouting Thomas said...

“fundamental liberal values” like feminism have been used as clubs against Trump from the day he announced his candidacy.

Women must be believed. All accusations against men by women are true.

Of course, as Althouse, a committed Marxist feminist will tell you, this is not the true feminism. That’s never been tried. As is true with all Marxist dogma, the problem isn’t that the dogma is insane... the problem is those in charge.

Every male conservative who runs for or is appointed to office is routinely accused of some sort of sexual offense, as defined by feminism.

But, that’s tells you nothing about femnism. Real feminism has never been tried.

If they’d only put Althouse in charge, feminism wouldn’t constantly elevate moronic liars like Hillary.

pacwest said...

The coming election isn't about Trump vs. the eventual candidate. It is Trump vs. the Media.

Nonapod said...

"And if he didn't cheat on a regular basis, he'd have no worry."

How, specifically, does this person imagine he "cheated"? Is he talking about "cheating" on his taxes? Here's a little hint, Trump has basically been under a perma-audit for decades. I mean, unless you're trying to allege that the IRS isn't trying super hard to squeeze every last dime out of Trump that they possibly can? The IRS? Do you imagine that the people at the IRS wouldn't absolutely love to mount Trump's head on their trophy wall? Really?

Darrell said...

It's the same plan as before. Try and keep Trump from governing, until the return to power. If Republicans try that when they do return, cry "negating the peoples' choice" or "cancelling an election" in the Media until the Republicans back off.

Shouting Thomas said...

Every President since nixon has released his taxes. Why is trump special especially with the bullshit excuse he has given for not releasing them?

Because that would be giving more ammunition to enemies who have proven they’ll lie their asses off?

Yeah, we can certainly count on The NY Times, primary purveyor of the Russia collusion hoax, fairly evaluating Trump’s business.

You really haven’t learned yet that Trump won’t play into his enemies’ hands? He isn’t Romney.

BADuBois said...

Keep digging in the manure pile, Dems, there's bound to be a pony in there somewhere!

Darrell said...

Let's have a look at Freder's taxes. I'm sure someone can find something to jail him with.

Henry said...

@Nobody -- Good response. What you describe ties into the "singular obsession."

"damage the president politically" still seems like weak phrasing.

Jersey Fled said...

Freder:

Cummings is requesting financial records of Trump prior to his taking office, i.e. as a private citizen.

Michael K said...

Henry needs to visit Venezuela where politics is plays with real hard ball.

Rachel Maddow got a copy of Trump's 1995 return which some IRS patriot leaked to her. Remember that ? Have you heard a word about it ?

Why not ? Because it showed he paid $25 MILLION in taxes that year.

My guess is that he will release returns in summer of 2020 showing a billion dollars in taxes paid. QED

Quayle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tcrosse said...

Every President since nixon has released his taxes.

Voluntarily. To sub poena them would set a bad precedent for all of us.

Ken B said...

Exhibit 1: Law professor Elizabeth Warren asserting that where there's smoke there's fire. All accusations are true.

Quayle said...

"And if he didn't cheat on a regular basis, he'd have no worry."

Even when temporarily banished in one place or by one generation, tyranny and unjust oppression will always attempt to creep back and gain new life whenever and wherever it is allowed to take root. And the political party that championed it in one generation is just as susceptible to giving it a home in the next.

Ken B said...

Freder
If you won’t vote for someone who won’t release his taxes, don’t vote for Trump. Problem solved. No need to abuse subpoena power to help you make up your mind whether you should vote for Trump.

walter said...

Shouting Thomas said...
Every President since nixon has released his taxes. Why is trump special especially with the bullshit excuse he has given for not releasing them?
-
Because that would be giving more ammunition to enemies who have proven they’ll lie their asses off?
--
Works for Freder.

I don't think moving goalposts analogy does the Dem strategy justice. It's more akin to plate spinning.

rhhardin said...

Public funding of democrat opposition research.

Trumpit said...

"In 1927, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Sullivan that the approach was legally sound: illegally earned income was subject to income tax; Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. rejected the argument that the Fifth Amendment protected criminals from reporting illegal income.[68]" Wikipedia (Al Capone)
*tax evasion was the most straightforward way to stop a gangster. Obtaining conman Trump's financial documents, i.e., tax returns, is a proper use of congress's oversight powers. Trump uses the "I'm under (perpetual) audit" bullsh*t argument should fail in court and in public opinion.

Bob Boyd said...

Trump hatred, like Progressive-ism itself, is rooted in vanity and a sense of entitlement.

Henry said...

Michael K said...
Henry needs to visit Venezuela where politics is plays with real hard ball.

You imply that this isn't real hard ball. Did you mean to imply that?

Bob Boyd said...

Obtaining conman Trump's financial documents...

The government already has Trumps financial documents. You're arguing the documents should be turned over to politicians for political purposes.

Richard Fagin said...

Does the Washington Post commenter who thinks Trump cheated on his taxes regularly somehow escaped IRS auditors? Did the Obama administration order spying on the Trump campaign and the IRS to target conservative groups applying for tax exempt status somehow forget to order extra scrutiny for Trump's tax returns? Somehow IRS Commissioner Koskinen, who was in contempt of Congress, disobeyed an order to target Trump's tax returns because of his oath office (which, to his credit, Nixon's IRS commissioner did)?

Bill Peschel said...

If it's good to know what the president has done with his money, then it will be just as good to know what all our representatives have done with their money.

Does anyone believe that Nancy Pelosi's a millionaire by saving her money? We already know her husband was involved in green-money scams during the first part of Obama's presidency.

Let the sunshine in!

chickelit said...

And if he didn't cheat on a regular basis, he'd have no worry.

Be they Liberals or Puritans? What say Ye?

SteveR said...

Here’s how it works. Give me 2016. I found something funny. Let’s agree you pay $7500 and we’ll stop looking. CPA: “take it”

Skookum John said...

I’m guessing he’s carrying forward losses from his bad bet on the Atlantic City casino business. These likely reduced his net taxes to a level that is discordant with his billionaire lifestyle, at least for people unable to distinguish between income and assets, which is a thumping majority of the American electorate. Perfectly legal and justifiable, of course, and no doubt proctoscopically audited every single year, but highly embarrassing for a politician trying to appeal to the Joe Sixpack crowd.

I don’t care about it and will continue to support him, but it is probably the biggest remaining threat to his re-election.

chickelit said...

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...
Hillary Clinton revenge porn. Funny, she is the real criminal.

If this is a proxy war, she has a lot of loyal followers. I don't doubt that many established partisans owe the Clintons and that the corruption runs deep.

tommyesq said...

Henry

"'damage the president politically' still seems like weak phrasing."

I think that is to emphasize that (a) they will not be able to hurt him with criminal charges, and (b) they are not actually serious about seeking out criminal conduct, and this is all just a politically-motivated stunt.

Nonapod said...

Basically the Trump tax truthers are making the argument that the IRS isn't doing its job. We're talking about an IRS that has clearly demonstrated its political hatred towards conservatives in the recent past. The IRS that infamously targeted Tea Party groups a few years back. The IRS of Lois Lerner and John Koskinen. These people somehow think that that IRS wouldn't move heaven and earth to get Trump? Good grief.

MadisonMan said...

Recalling that article by someone whose name I forget, but he goes by all three names:

"..and when that didn't work, they subpoenaed all of Trump's Tax records"

Bob Boyd said...

The theory that Trump is a wild criminal is like the theory of man-made climate change. For those who subscribe, its not falsifiable.

tommyesq said...

"Obtaining conman Trump's financial documents...

The government already has Trumps financial documents. You're arguing the documents should be turned over to politicians for political purposes."

Also, to subpoena Al Capone's tax records, they had to make a probable cause showing - here, there is nothing but hope on the Democrats' part.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

The left are the party of ultimate power, force and harassment.
Also - lawlessness within their own ranks is totally accepted.

readering said...

I'm concerned about liberal values but a House subpoena directed at IRS doesn't rate in that regard.

Bay Area Guy said...

Democrats can't win politically on the issues. That's why they resort to endless investigations.

Nobody who works hard for their paycheck wants it partially confiscated by the Left for big-ass government programs that most often fail. Worse, most government spending just goes to hiring government workers who enjoy THEIR paycheck at the expense of yours.

So, Plan B is to investigate Trump ad nauseum to find some dirt, to have their Media allies promote said dirt to hurt his reputation, to win elections based thereon.

The Dems used to say, "It's the economy, Stupid!" That's still true, and the economy is doing well.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Chicklit - we all know the Clinton money grub tentacles run deep and her entitled power-stint was all lined up with the usual suspects. Brennan and company were all going to pocket millions.

President-Mom-Jeans said...

"Let's have a look at Freder's taxes. I'm sure someone can find something to jail him with."

I agree, with a pre-dawn swat raid for good measure. Give him the Mueller treatment.

Bob Boyd said...

I'm concerned about liberal values... unless its something directed at Trump.

Freder Frederson said...

Rachel Maddow got a copy of Trump's 1995 return which some IRS patriot leaked to her. Remember that ? Have you heard a word about it ?

You have no proof that it was some "IRS patriot". And it was just a couple of pages, not his full return. In fact the most likely leaker was Trump himself so useful idiots like you will repeatedly tell us "well one year he paid 25 million in tax."

I bet after that year he found himself a less honest accountant.

Voluntarily. To sub poena them would set a bad precedent for all of us.

Actually the law being used to request the taxes was passed after the teapot dome scandal so Congress could properly perform their oversight role.

Birkel said...

Step 1: Write an incomprehensible tax code meant to change behavior.
Step 2: Demand Trump's tax returns.
Step 3: ????
Step 4: Profit!

rightguy said...

Orange Man BAD !!! He must be destroyed to save the country and the planet !! The country must be destroyed to save country.

(Very persuasive, ehh?)

Henry said...

Avoiding the paywalled Washington Post, I find the CNBC version informative:

President Donald Trump and his business ...

The reference to "his business" makes the nature of the suit more clear.

...Trump’s lawyer in the lawsuit, William Consovoy, said in a statement that the attempt by Cummings’ committee to “obtain years’ worth of confidential information from their accountants lacks any legitimate legislative purpose, is an abuse of power, and is just another example of overreach by the president’s political opponents.”

That's singularly more direct. Here's the rub:

Trump’s lawyers argue that Cummings’ subpoena lacks a “legitimate legislative purpose,” and is therefore an invalid action for a congressional committee to take.

“With this subpoena, the Oversight Committee is instead assuming the powers of the Department of Justice,” the complaint says.

TJM said...

The Dems are a crime organization masquerading as a political party, aided and abetted by their moll, the Mainstream Media.

pacwest said...

All Presidential candidates should release their taxes. And college transcripts, and personal diaries, and full records of all transactions public and private, and..... (insert your particulars here).

Probably easier would be for Trump to just admit he is a lying cheating scum and resign. If he would just do that entire world would be a much better place. And Dems would become rational people. And Santa and the Easter Bunny would show themselves.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Henry: "Democrats are singularly obsessed with finding something they can use to damage the President politically."

Isn't that what political parties are supposed to do?


If you stopped here your comment would have been less vacuous.

I draw attention to the word politically.

If the word was "criminally" or "personally", that might be worth reflection.


So you think the filing is meant to be read as implying that Cummings and the HOC aren't pursuing any "somethings" that could be used to damage Trump criminally or personally and thereby damage him politically, only "somethings" that would have strictly "political" damage?

That would be a tortured inference, suggesting either disingenuousness or brain damage.

Or maybe the HOC is the referent for "criminally" and "personally" in your statement? That would absolve you of making disingenuousnessly tortured inferences but convict you for making syntactically tortured assertions.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Should Trump go before the Democracy dies in Darkness flogging and harassment committee. Checks and balances, baby.

Phil said...

Freder thinks Congress can get Trump's tax returns easy peasy. So does Patterico. I doubt that it's a slam dunk or they already would.

Con Law types - has 6103(f) ever been taken through the appeals process?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Henry, do you know why “legitimate legislative purpose” is quoted twice there? It happens to be the key to why Democrats will lose this suit.

SGT Ted said...

The Democrats are going full fascist here in trying to use their powers of office to wreck an opponent absent any evidence of an actual crime.

Bob Boyd said...

At some point, having looked everywhere else for evidence of a possible crime, the Democrats are going to call for a body cavity search of the President.
If he objects, it will be considered proof that he's hiding something.

Henry said...

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Let's recap.

The second-highest-rated comment at the link quotes what I quoted and says: "And if he didn't cheat on a regular basis, he'd have no worry."

My point is that the phrase that the second-highest-rated WAPO comment quoted is utterly mundane.

Thus my 9:44 AM comment. I wondered what the non-mundane stuff was.

cubanbob said...

Freder Frederson said...
Every President since nixon has released his taxes. Why is trump special especially with the bullshit excuse he has given for not releasing them"

Why the cherry picking? Go big or go home. Rather lets have full disclosure on every elected and appointed official at every level of government for not only every year they serve but for the prior five years before serving and the following five years after their service.

Henry said...

@Mike (MJB Wolf).

Exactly.

CWJ said...

MadisonMan,

You're thinking of Victor Davis Hanson.

Pianoman said...

Impeachment is the Dems white whale, and it's been that way since Nov 2016.

Birkel said...

The obsession, if anybody looks closely, is the power to control others.
It is the Will to Power every day.

steve uhr said...

Why isn’t sufficient transparency to see if our elected leaders have conflicts of interest a fundamental liberal value?

Trumpit said...

"The theory that Trump is a wild criminal is like the theory of man-made climate change. For those who subscribe, its not falsifiable."

Humans are raping the planet, I'll have you know. We must defeat the forces of darkness that you scarily languish in. You are foolish.

I demand that Trump do something about the poaching of lemurs in Madagascar before there are none left. We must get rid of this pernicious tweeting president once and for all.

https://news.yahoo.com/poachers-threaten-precious-madagascar-forest-lemurs-021641764.html

Mike Sylwester said...

The Obama Administration framed two innocent advisors on Donald Trump's campaign staff -- George Papadopoulos and Carter Page -- in order to collect and study communications within that staff and further within Trump's personal sphere.

It was a fishing expedition, in which the Democrats hoped they might find some useful tidbits of information to attack Republicans.

That is what Democrats do with their political power.

That is why they want Trump's tax information.

Drago said...

Trumpit: "I demand that Trump do something about the poaching of lemurs in Madagascar before there are none left."

This may be Trumpit's Greatest Post Ever!

No Lemurs in Madagascar!!

Perfection Trumpit. Seriously.

Drago said...

Pianoman: "Impeachment is the Dems white whale, and it's been that way since Nov 2016."

Actually, during every republican administration in the last 60 years.

Skookum John said...

I think this is where Trumpit has blown xir cover. Had me fooled for a while.

Michael K said...

Blogger steve uhr said...
Why isn’t sufficient transparency to see if our elected leaders have conflicts of interest a fundamental liberal value?


I agree. I want to find out how Congress people with salaries of about $150,000 per annum became millionaires. I would like to see tax returns for Nancy Pelosi and Diane Feinstein, especially their husbands.

Trump made his money before politics. That is the difference. I have seen estimates that he has lost $1 billion since elected,

He has been in perpetual audit for years,

Bob Boyd said...

The inescapable conclusion at this point is that Trump is boy scout...no...a saint. The man is as pure as the wind-driven snow. He's clearly a model of moral uprightness and good character Democrats would do well to try to emulate. What they should be investigating is how he does it so they can improve themselves.
It's a pity Dem voters don't demand their own candidates at least aspire to meet the Trumpian example, don't you think?

rehajm said...

They are asking for things they wouldn’t understand anyways. We have a Presidential candidate that believes GE doesn’t pay taxes! A 35% to 39% will be described as ‘only a four percent increase’ by some leftie politician. Then there’s the old fallback “Swiss bank account!!!”

iowan2 said...

msdnc is live breaking right now. The Easter Bunny standing with President Trump is WEARING GLASSES!!!! That right, glasses, spectacles. msdnc is feverishly digging into the meaning. No one has ever remembered such a subversive signaling...until President Trump.

Stay tuned

Michael K said...

Freder is going full lunatic.

You have no proof that it was some "IRS patriot". And it was just a couple of pages, not his full return. In fact the most likely leaker was Trump himself so useful idiots like you will repeatedly tell us "well one year he paid 25 million in tax."

Sarcasm is usually wasted on low IQ types as they have trouble understanding and see everything as concrete. By concrete, Freder, I don't mean the white hard stuff.

Try harder. These things are not that hard to understand, even if you are below the mean, so to speak.

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Henry: My point is that the phrase that the second-highest-rated WAPO comment quoted is utterly mundane.

Thus my 9:44 AM comment.


Oh, that was the point of your gobbledygook in the post (@8:57) that I was addressing?

OK.

Bob said...

Drago,

I'm trying to reconcile

"I demand that Trump do something about the poaching of lemurs in Madagascar before there are none left."

with

"We must get rid of this pernicious tweeting president once and for all".

Both in the same paragraph!

I'll bet Trumpit can think up at least six impossible things before breakfast! Probably more!

Bob Boyd said...

The Easter Bunny standing with President Trump is WEARING GLASSES!!!!

You know who else wore glasses? Lenin. And where was Lenin from? Exactly!
Wake up sheeple!

Biff said...

"And if he didn't cheat on a regular basis, he'd have no worry."

Translation: "Stop and frisk is great, as long as we're the ones doing the stopping and frisking!"

Henry said...

ADSB -- I'm interested in the way written language is used to frame attitudes and opinions (and often badly). That's why I quote.

rehajm said...

Just the nature of the question reveals reveals they wouldn’t understand whatever he turned over to them. ‘Financial records’. Tax returns? Whatever spreadsheets and/or work papers the accountants for hundreds of entities have lying around? Inventory? His credit card statements? Toll receipts?

rehajm said...

His coupons from Wendy’s?

Drago said...

steve uhr: "Why isn’t sufficient transparency to see if our elected leaders have conflicts of interest a fundamental liberal value?"

The dems wouldnt even allow us to see Hillary's unsecured server, emails or Clinton Foundation records.

Uhr, where were you hiding this recently discovered "deeply held principle"?

LOL

These idiot lefties/LLR's really believe they can fool everyone like they do the dem base voters, whom Howard assures us are all "reeeel Smart like"....

Lloyd W. Robertson said...

I still think it would have been more relevant during the campaign to get a look at Hillary's health records. There was definitely something going on, or more than one thing. Brain damage from a fall? Dementia? Alcohol? I don't know. She made remarkably few personal appearances for a presidential candidate, and there were obvious signs of frailty.

Sometimes in the past it seemed that Americans, or the media, were getting too intrusive about the health of politicians. But then Paul Tsongas was caught fudging, saying he had recovered from cancer. He died just after the end of Clinton's first term; so if Tsongas had won, his term would have been truncated by cancer. I remember a review of Kitty Dukakis' memoirs. The reviewer said it became clear that if Michael had been elected in 1988, he probably wouldn't have admitted how sick his wife was, and he would have had to provide virtually full-time care to her.

Howard said...

Professor still avoiding taking on the Mueller Report. It's a small sacrifice to maintain a safe space for the fragile Trumpian snow flakes

Francisco D said...

Every President since nixon has released his taxes. Why is trump special especially with the bullshit excuse he has given for not releasing them?

With the partial exception of the peanut farmer, all these people were professional politicians who volunteered their tax returns to show how virtuous they were. The same goes for other elected officials. It is theater.

Whatever criminal activities that became the source of wealth for politicians like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid were cleverly (and probably legally) hidden from the IRS whose job it is to examine their returns. That is why lobbyists, tax accountants and tax lawyers make a lot of money - creating loopholes for people.

Does anyone think that the House Dems can find illegality in Trump's tax returns? Of course not. He pays a lot for the best accountants and lawyers. It is simply theater.

iowan2 said...

The talking heads covered this when the law suit was filed. Well, "covered this" not accurate. The media never 'covers' any piece of news, they just use a headline to established narrative.

Several on this thread accurately get to the core. The request serves no legitimate purpose.
But do we know Who Cummins is. Do you know what he is asking for? OK Trump businesses tax returns. Why? Under what congressional power can Congress see private tax returns? Oversight, I think Feder gets an 'attaboy' button for that. Teapot dome scandal. Good job. But what is the law and the oversight power it created?
It's oversight of the IRS. Not citizens. Not the President of the United States. Oversight of the IRS.
Now I ask... a question I have not seen a single media member ask. Now I ask, Mr Cummins, what evidence leads you to believe the IRS is corrupt and not doing its job. What evidence do you have that leads you to exercise your power to invade the privacy of a private citizen?

Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...

Henry: ADSB -- I'm interested in the way written language is used to frame attitudes and opinions (and often badly). That's why I quote.

The problem with the "baffle 'em with bullshit" fallback is that you have to actually be baffling, Henry. Transparent non-responses aren't baffling.

Kevin said...

Hating Trump has taken precedence over fundamental liberal values

That's a good first step, now define what the Left's fundamental values have become.

Then you can see they hate Trump because he mostly embodies the fundamental liberal values they've abandoned.

To reject something is to also hate the person who retains it.

And the only answer they can come up with is they're rejecting "white supremacy" and therefore Trump must be a white supremacist.

That's the little head game they're playing over on CNN and MSNBC.

Kevin said...

But what is the law and the oversight power it created? It's oversight of the IRS. Not citizens. Not the President of the United States. Oversight of the IRS.

These are the kind of comments I wish we could upvote here.

If Congress has "oversight" of the President, who has oversight of Congress? Surely not the President.

That puts Congress in a superior position to the Executive Branch.

That's what Cummings and his ilk are really asking for.

But only until they can put a Democrat back in the White House.

Shouting Thomas said...

Professor still avoiding taking on the Mueller Report. It's a small sacrifice to maintain a safe space for the fragile Trumpian snow flakes

Howard, I can always count on you to write the most empty headed, incomprehensible shit. And, the hilarious part is that you alway present that shit with that sneering Voice of God that indicates you believe yourself to be omniscient.

Take remedial English reading and writing courses. Learn how to say something substantively and simply. Maybe you just don't have anything to say. That's often the problem.

Hagar said...

The law says Congress can request an individual's tax returns from the IRS.
But this is only for the relevant committees and is only for the purpose of seeing if there is something about the tax laws that needs to be rectified. It is not for investigating any individual(s)' suspected misdeeds; that is still for the IRS and DoJ. And if the committee obtains such returns and leaks them, the individual(s) who did would be guilty of a very serious crime.

If the Democrats in Congress do this to Trump and is allowed to get away with it, they can also do it to you or me. Trump is no different in this respect.

Bruce Hayden said...

“The dems wouldnt even allow us to see Hillary's unsecured server, emails or Clinton Foundation records.

Uhr, where were you hiding this recently discovered "deeply held principle"?”

The significant difference there was that the emails that Crooked Hillary was hiding by use of that private server were created on government time when she was an employee of the American public. The requested Trump tax returns were mostly for years where he was a private citizen, fully protected by our tax laws, and owing no legal or moral duty to tur over to his political opponents in the House, for political use against him.

And conflicts of interests were almost assuredly why Crooked Hillary used a private email server in the first place. The problem was that she was running a pay-to-play scheme from her executive offices at Foggy Bottom, selling American foreign policy to the highest bidders around the world. And, she was right - the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy would indeed have tried to tie changes in America foreign policy to people and organizations that she and her family were accepting large amounts of money from.

And most of the money she was raising for her family wouldn’t show up on their tax returns because the vast majority (probably 90% or more) was going to their family foundation/slush fund. That is where most of the really shady money went, with much of the money that they claimed on their income tax returns coming from speaking fees and other sources that they could pretend were legitimate.

walter said...

Were his taxes within the seemingly boundless purview of the Mueller team's request?
Given the clear witch hunt that just transpired, gonna have to do better than Nixonian "tradition"

Michael K said...

Take remedial English reading and writing courses. Learn how to say something substantively and simply. Maybe you just don't have anything to say. That's often the problem.

Howard is just a "jumper" like those that used to follow Jack Kennedy around on the campaign to get attention for themselves.

Howard, they were kind of cute. You lose.

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem here is that this has long been planned. Last spring long before the election that gave Cummins the power to request Trump’s tax returns, whenever I would talk with my liberal friends about the Russian collusion hoax collapsing, they would respond “just wait until after the election, and we get ahold of Trump’s tax returns and show that he is conspiring with the Russians, (or someone else) that way”. I found it interesting that they knew about this most of a year ahead, and they knew that they would win the House (or the Senate, which would probably have worked just as well). Being suspicious and paranoid, this raises the question in my mind about was this the reason that they raised so much money, and cheated so openly, to win at least one house of Congress? They seemed to be blowing their wad on that off year election. And this seems to be the reason.

Michael said...

Freder thinks Trump has “an accountant.” I think Trump uses a smallish firm in NY that has about 120 partners.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

To be constitutional, their request for financial disclosure must apply to all Americans, or they must pass an amendment a la "Twilight Amendment" to make it Pro-Choice, selective, opportunistic, that will grant exemptions (e.g. president) to our civil rights.

Drago said...

Michael: Freder thinks Trump has “an accountant.” I think Trump uses a smallish firm in NY that has about 120 partners."

Yep. Its adorable how dense they are. I'm surprised they dont remember the accountants from that firm presenting a large pile docs for the media at one of the early press conferences.

In the same way these idiots think Michael Cohen was "THE lawyer" for Trump! LOL

The Trump Org used multiple law firms for all Trump Org legal work. Cohen had zero visibility into that.

Drago said...

I can just imagine that the lefty/LLR's have this weird vision of Trump sitting there, late at night, under a lamp with a weak bulb, plotting this little corner-cutting here and that little illegality there with one or 2 henchmen.

LOL

Its more of that lefty "intellectual superiority" Howard goes on and on about.

tcrosse said...

Instead of demanding Trump's tax returns, they could just make shit up. They're good at that. If they can turn Kavanaugh into a serial rapist, they can easily turn Trump into a tax evader.

policraticus said...

If he was cheating on his taxes, then he would have long since been prosecuted for fraud, tax evasion, etc. My guess is that, long before Trump was ever a candidate for office, he was probably audited by the IRS regularly. Very regularly. Maybe ever single year regularly. Not because he is particularly dirty, but because his business and his income are exceedingly complicated. Complicated tax returns are easy to demagogue. Which is why the Democrats want them. They can hold the returns up like a bloody shirt and make whatever claims about them they want to make while resting secure in the knowledge that very few Americans will take the time to understand if their rhetoric matches the numbers.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Kevin said...

If Congress has "oversight" of the President, who has oversight of Congress? Surely not the President.

That puts Congress in a superior position to the Executive Branch.

That's what Cummings and his ilk are really asking for.
****************

It's pretty clear that Congress does not have the authority to compel a person running for President to release his tax returns.

To do so would impose an additional qualifications for becoming POTUS beyond what the Constitution sets forth.A Constitutionl Amendment would be required to do that.

So....all that volunteerism by other Presidential candidates is immaterial. Congress could not have compelled them to reveal their tax returns as a condition for running.

And I would submit that whatever the authority Congress gave itself to see individual tax returns back in 1924, that law cannot compel a Constitutional Officer to surrender information that Congress could not get as a condition for running for President.

After all, Congress *did* tighten up the access the ** POTUS ** had to individual tax returns, when it discovered Nixon was using the info for political purposes. So...why should Congress be able to fish around looking for political dirt on Trump via his tax info?

I'd enjoy seeing the Supremes decide this case. So Trump is wise to let Cummings sue him.



Sebastian said...

"Hating Trump has taken precedence over fundamental liberal values"

The fundamental liberal values are long gone.

Progs are about power, including judicial power, to rearrange society as they please.

Even Trump hatred, obsessive as it is, is just a tool.

The question for the Althouses is whether they want empower these illiberal progs just because they want a more "Liberal" Supreme Court.

One of these days she may even wonder if there is a connection between the illiberal anti-trump prog lust for power and the kind of judging progs prefer--whether the law as they and she imagine it does not amount to an even more fundamental attack on fundamental liberal values.

Freder Frederson said...

If he was cheating on his taxes, then he would have long since been prosecuted for fraud, tax evasion, etc.

Really?! You believe this? The New York Times carried out an investigation and discovered that Fred Trump got away with massive tax fraud to transfer his money to his children (predominately Donald) without paying estate taxes. Trump's story that he started out with nothing but a 1 million dollar loan from his dad which he had to pay back is bullshit.

With good accountants (notice I used the plural) anyone who is in real estate can hide a lot of fraud and never get caught.

And no, I doubt that Trump's tax returns would reveal outright criminality. He (or at least his accounting firms and accountants) is not that stupid. What it probably would reveal is he is nowhere near as rich as he claims (which probably is what bothers him most about revealing the taxes), and pays almost no tax (which he is probably proud of--hell he said as much in one of the debate). What it would reveal would be potential conflicts of interest and, most importantly, what foreign entities and persons he owes money to, and is in partnership with.

iowan2 said...

Professor still avoiding taking on the Mueller Report.

Taking over the LLR's spot of lecturing your host on how to do what she does for her enjoyment?
I can't imagine what legal analysis could be done. The report is now public. It did not change a single persons mind. End of story.

Next up, How the deep state spied on a political opponent.

Known Unknown said...

"without paying estate taxes"

Estate taxes are immoral.

iowan2 said...

From legalinsurection, comes the entirety of the lawsuit filed against Cummings. 7 items are laid out detailing the legal basis for the lawsuit and the lack of legal standing Cummings has to pursue investigations that have no basis in concerning existing legislation. The purpose of Congresses oversight power.

5. Chairman Cummings has ignored the constitutional limits on Congress’ power to investigate. Article I of the Constitution does not contain an “Investigations Clause” or an “Oversight Case Clause.” It gives Congress the power to enact certain legislation. Accordingly, investigations are legitimate only insofar as they further some legitimate legislative purpose. No investigation can be an end in itself. And Congress cannot use investigations to exercise powers that the Constitution assigns to the executive or judicial branch.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/04/trump-sues-to-protect-personal-financial-records-from-democrat-house-subpoenas/

This is why it is so easy to call the "news" fake. I have heard and read several news stories about this law suit. None of the text has been quoted or discussed. Lawyers have been interviewed and made zero reference to the legal underpinnings of the lawsuit against Cummings. None have questioned the seemingly limitless power Cummings is claiming the Constitution grants him and how that affects the liberty and privacy protections as enumerated in the Constitution.

narciso said...

you know how it is, heads they win, tails you lose, of course, concerning the assassination of an American ambassador due to the failure of due diligence of a cabinet member, cummings found that extremely onerous,

roesch/voltaire said...

Asking presidents to do what they all have done is hardly an obsession, the obsession seems to be with Trump who will say anything to hide his taxes.

tcrosse said...

Asking presidents to do what they all have done is hardly an obsession, the obsession seems to be with Trump who will say anything to hide his taxes.

The aren't asking. They are using the power of the sub poena. BTW Trump's taxes are none of your fucking business.

MountainMan said...

"Asking presidents to do what they all have done is hardly an obsession..." Someone had a tally in an article the other day showing that none of the Democrats on the committee that are wanting Trump's tax returns have released their own tax returns. There is no Constitutional requirement for a President or presidential candidate or any candidate for Federal office to release any personal financial information. If you think that candidates and sitting Presidents should do that, get a constitutional amendment which requires it.

As Prof. Althouse has pointed out before, there are only three requirements to be President: be 35 years of age; a natural born citizen of the United States; and a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. That's it. The assessment of whether or not a candidate is fit for office beyond those three requirements is up to the voters. The voters in 30 states gave their electoral votes to Trump, so obviously the voters in those states didn't think seeing his tax returns was a big deal. The House Democrats should drop this before they do any more damage than what they have already done with the Russia hoax.

Furthermore, if there were irregularities in Trump's returns, then don't you think the IRS would have uncovered those long ago and taken him to court and required he pay additional taxes, interest, and penalties? Would there not have been a lot of publicity around that? Don't you think that if there was something wrong with his tax returns some deep-state operative in the IRS would have leaked that long ago?

It is not even certain that any irregularities in his returns when a private citizen prior to becoming President would be impeachable. During the Grant administration an impeachment vote on V-P Schuyler Colfax by the full House on charges of corruption partly failed because the events being investigated had taken place while he was serving in Congress rather than during his term as V-P.

rehajm said...

Lefties believe legal and legitimate tax deductions, exemptions, even items not subject to tax are 'loopholes'. Legal wealth transfer instruments are 'fraud'. Too ignorant to understand what they'd be looking at...

JAORE said...

If you were not guilty you'd decline a lawyer... you'd allow the cops to search your vehicle/home, you'd willingly give up your phone records and DNA.

Who votes for these monsters?

Original Mike said...

"Hating Trump has taken precedence over fundamental liberal values, and the shallowness of the belief in those values is revealed in the way people don't even notice what they are subordinating to their... singular obsession."

Kind of like when liberals supressed their liberal values to absolve Bill Clinton.

I think Althouse needs a new "bullshit" category: "liberal values bullshit".

Freder Frederson said...

Lefties believe legal and legitimate tax deductions, exemptions, even items not subject to tax are 'loopholes'. Legal wealth transfer instruments are 'fraud'. Too ignorant to understand what they'd be looking at...

No, what we are saying that it is very easy to hide fraud, especially if you are running multiple closely held partnerships and corporations.

One of the methods Fred Trump used to fraudulently transfer money to his children works like this:

Donald sets up a building supply company. He buys a million dollars worth of building materials from a wholesaler. He tells the wholesaler "I'll pay you a million two if you make the invoice out for 1.75 million." He then turns around and bills his father (without ever touching the building materials) 2 million for the materials, which his dad happily pays even though he knows they are only worth half that. Do this through three or four entities and the irregularities disappear. That is how you transfer $800,000 to your son without it looking like a gift.

If you don't think shit like this goes on every day in the construction business, you are hopelessly naive. My brother's father in law ran just these types of scams his entire career (he was an insurance broker, not in construction) and never got caught.

iowan2 said...

No, what we are saying that it is very easy to hide fraud, especially if you are running multiple closely held partnerships and corporations.

Feder, even if what you use as an example is feasible,(it's NOT) You are now under an obligation to define exactly what congressional power is Cummings using to investigate that specific transaction? Read my post up thread from here 8 comments,you don't even have to follow the link (knowledge has a habit of changing what you think) and explain how congress can do what you advocate doing.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Freder Frederson said...

If you don't think shit like this goes on every day in the construction business, you are hopelessly naive. My brother's father in law ran just these types of scams his entire career (he was an insurance broker, not in construction) and never got caught.

*************************************

I don't doubt that "shit like this goes on every day..."

I DO doubt that YOU KNOW that it went on every day in Trump's life.

That's "guilty until proven innocent", straight up. It's NOT the idea behind our system of criminal law. You apparently are down with the idea that a prosecutor should start investigating Trump w/o having a predicate, just an open-ended search for "something" illegal.

So don't go holding yourself out as some sort of high-minded analyst. You're just another anti-Trump bigot, assuming what you have not bothered to prove.

Freder Frederson said...

Estate taxes are immoral.

Even if true, it is irrelevant. They are legal.

Freder Frederson said...

I DO doubt that YOU KNOW that it went on every day in Trump's life.

I don't know, but the NYT did an extensive investigative report on it.

If you have a problem with the NYT's investigation of how the Trump family evaded taxes and covered up gifts from Fred to his children, point out the errors in the story.

Michael K said...

No, what we are saying that it is very easy to hide fraud, especially if you are running multiple closely held partnerships and corporations.

That's how the Field Marshall got rich, right Freder ?

narciso said...

it's what they don't mention, which is most interesting,


https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/04/21/sunday-talks-rep-john-ratcliffe-discusses-the-weissmann-mueller-report/

wholelottasplainin' said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
iowan2 said...

If you have a problem with the NYT's investigation of how the Trump family evaded taxes and covered up gifts from Fred to his children, point out the errors in the story.

I don't know anything about Fred Trump and how he conducted his business. The very few pages of info available cant be used to make many conclusions.

You have yet to explain how any of this is something that comes under Article 1 powers Cummings is attempting to use.

wholelottasplainin' said...

Freder, your problem is that you have argued that the "shit that goes on every day" is illegal. It's not:

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/10/3/17934360/trump-taxes-illegal-new-york-times-expose

"I would say 80 percent of this, 85 percent of this, would be a yawn for the uber-wealthy estate planners. Like, all my friends who are estate planners are calling me up and going, “What’s the big deal? We do this for all our clients.” And once again, that’s a different story — that’s, “Should we allow this or not? Look at what the uber-wealthy are doing.”

But if [the Trumps] falsified valuations or played really aggressively with them, that’s different. If they used these shell corporations to rig the rate increases in the rent-stabilized apartments, that’s something different. There’s smoke there — there could be serious issues there. Now, the president might say, “This is my father. If there was fraud, this was him, not me.” Except the Times has done a good job of showing that he was integrally involved in all of this.

Gaby Del Valle
Are these loopholes in the tax code, or is it just the way things are? And can the government do anything about it?

Lee-Ford Tritt
It’s funny because people talk about them being loopholes, but they’re technically not. These are literally the statutes and what the courts have said are fine. GRATS are so commonly used by the uber-wealthy, and they’re so effective. They can wipe out gifts and estate taxes, hundreds of millions of dollars."

****************

The article goes on to say that DeBlasio or the IRS might try to get back some of that unpaid tax mopney, but how difficult it would be find ways revive the closed Fred Trump estate, since the Statute of Limitations has lapsed---UNLESS they could argue fraud, which would be tough, given that the manipulations are a common ploy among the uber-wealthy.

So...Have any indictments follow from the NYT article?

No. Yet you ASSUME criminality already.

When what you are is very, very angry and envious that Trump and his family figured out clever ways to keep their own money.

Anonymous said...

I'm still dipping in and out of Mueller's overpriced stinkbomb, but found easier fair in the Roger Stone indictment--24pp available at a site near you.

It's much the same but on a more manageable scale. Practically every allegation in it, INCLUDING CITATIONS TO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS begins with "On or about" such and such a date.

Is that normal? I thought lawyers were supposed to be rigorous in their facts to the point of pedantry, but it's all, "and then he did this other thing," on or about.

And the process crimes he's accused of are about communications to, from, or about Assange [et.al.] as if that per se constituted criminal conduct--and maybe it does if you accept the original contentions that Stone was some sort of mastermind of espionage and not a loudmouth, and that the Wikileaks releases could have been influenced in any way by Stone's
unseemly delight in discomfiting Hillary.

Narr
Used to think federal lawyers had to be smart

bagoh20 said...

I am absolutley certain that there are things in Trump's taxes that can be argued as illegal. I'm also certain that is true of every congress person, every commenter here, and every citizen. The IRS itself will not even vouch for its own advice, knowing how impenetrable the tax code is. Finding the inevitable piece of dirt in his taxes would not stop me from voting for him, just like not finding any dirt would not stop any TDS sufferers from voting against him, even if they had to vote for the real Hitler, so it is just another unfounded accusation that Trump may well use again to make the Dems look like fools. He will resist releasing his taxes until his enimies are so far out on a limb that he won't even need a saw, and then guess what? Another in the endless fails of the Dems choking on a big, fat, greasy nothingburger. Take that mixed metaphor, Althouse.

BTW, who do you think would win the most Democrat votes in a Trump versus zombie Adolf Hitler election?

Drago said...

Freder The Bundy Case Liar: "I don't know, but the NYT did an extensive investigative report on it."

LOLOLOLOLOL

Almost as extensive as their investigation into Trump Russia Collusion Over Many Years Which, Like, Totally Happened!!!

bagoh20 said...

"... the NYT did an extensive investigative report on it."

In another extensive piece of quality work the NYT gave Hillary an 83% chance of winning on election night. To be fair, it wasn't 100%. They had to consider the risk that she might just croke before it was over.

stlcdr said...

If they did have his tax returns, they would find something - politically - damaging. The IRS tax code is written so that rich buggers can deduct a butt-load of less-than-what-the-everyday-man-would-consider-legitimate, but are 100% legal.

Guess what? we all do it, and it's legal. But democrats have a problem with legal things, and no problem with illegal things.

stlcdr said...

The public: Hey, IRS, how much do I owe?
IRS: You tell us, and we will see if you are right.
The public: And if I'm wrong?
IRS: we will send you to jail.

Phidippus said...

Elijah E. Cummings is so dumb, the net IQ of the House is perceptively lowered as soon as he enters the room.

Difficult to believe as this may seem.

On the other hand, what else can he do for a living? He's too tall to get paid to hold a lantern in front of your house.

heyboom said...

One of the arguments I hear a lot is that if he has nothing to hide, then why not release them? I would counter by saying that if he had anything in them that is compromising, wouldn't it be logical to presume that the IRS would have found it in the many audits he's gone through?

heyboom said...

I would also say that had I read some of the comments beforehand I would have seen others make the same point.

n.n said...

Democrats are hunting witches, dunking warlocks, and planning babies. Here's to progress and other wicked solutions.

walter said...

Phidippus,
Can he top Hank Johnson's concern over Guam capsizing?

Anonymous said...

n.n. says Democrats are " . . . planning babies." Wha?

Narr
Trying to keep up

Michael K said...

if he had anything in them that is compromising, wouldn't it be logical to presume that the IRS would have found it in the many audits he's gone through?

That is the proof that this fishing expedition is just politics,. Except for Freder, of course,.

roesch/voltaire said...

For the Trump supporters I ask if there is noting to see but the usual big deductions for rich people, then why not see the tax returns instead of obsessing about why we don't need to see them.

walter said...

Dems nad MSM media hacks have gone out of their way to prove they are far from acting in good faith and will misconstrue anything and everything they find.
If not legally required, pound sand.

walter said...

And to return the favor for Dems stalling legally requested docs by R's, do the same back.

Original Mike said...

Blogger roesch/voltaire said..."For the Trump supporters I ask if there is noting to see but the usual big deductions for rich people, then why not see the tax returns instead of obsessing about why we don't need to see them."

Because no one trusts you not to make shit up like you did with the "collusion" debacle.

Gahrie said...

For the Trump supporters I ask if there is noting to see but the usual big deductions for rich people, then why not see the tax returns instead of obsessing about why we don't need to see them.

The same reason we've never seen Obama's college transcripts.

Anonymous said...

Tom Holland in one of his Roman history books observes that wealthy Romans could afford anything but privacy, especially in financial matters . . .

Just another example of how like the Romans we are, especially in our vices.

Narr
Maybe only in our vices

rehajm said...

The left has demonstrated that they are irresponsible with sensitive information, they wouldn’t understand them, assume legitimate actions are nefarious and would be back on the Watergate thing instead of governing.

Rusty said...

Blogger roesch/voltaire said...
"For the Trump supporters I ask if there is noting to see but the usual big deductions for rich people, then why not see the tax returns instead of obsessing about why we don't need to see them."
Spoken like someone who has only ever filed a EZ returm. Where to start so that you can comprehend? None of your fucking business. Want him to lift his wifes skirt for you too?

tcrosse said...

Want him to lift his wifes skirt for you too?

Now you're talking.

PackerBronco said...

I don't understand the Dems. Why go through all the legal hassle when they can just make something up? As one prominent Dem said: "It worked didn't it?"

Phidippus said...

walter said: "Can he top Hank Johnson's concern over Guam capsizing?"

He's trying, man, he's trying. That's a pretty high bar, though. Maybe with a boost from Spartacus on one leg, and Chief Spreading Bull on the other, they can get him over.

JAORE said...

For the Trump supporters I ask if there is noting to see but the usual big deductions for rich people, then why not see the tax returns instead of obsessing about why we don't need to see them.

Because the left would NEVER provide the context that they were "usual" (and legal). Instead we'd see trumpeting (heh) of deductions that little guys don't come close to being able to use.

We'd likely see years of (net) zero taxable income as property values fluctuated, and
If the full returns and supporting documents (as called for) were provided you'd see associated companies private business revealed.

It doesn't take El Predicto to figure out how this would play in the media.

Other than that.....

Nichevo said...


roesch/voltaire said...
For the Trump supporters I ask if there is noting to see but the usual big deductions for rich people, then why not see the tax returns instead of obsessing about why we don't need to see them.

4/22/19, 9:51 PM


1. For the reason given.
2. Principle
3. Written on both sides of a sheet of paper:

"How do you keep a fool busy? Turn over"