White House to Democrats seeking Trump tax returns - 'Never'

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Cryingdick said:

 

So it is your assertion that Obama is wrong in that quote?

Whether Obama is right or wrong, is entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether Congress has the authority to compel the IRS to hand over Trump's tax returns.  Keep on deflecting.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Ah, so we've gone from "release because it's tradition", to "it's the law".   And now you goof balls are quoting chapter and verse, as if you've known it all along and like, duh you guys, "it's the law".  And you say Trump supporters are idiots for parroting Fox News.    LMAO!

 

This effort and the pretext behind the Ways and Means request, is as obvious as a fart in church on Sunday.  That's why it will fail.  Ought to sack the  House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass) for misuse of his position and authority for political purposes. 

Right. Nothing quite so goofy as the law. There's an excellent case to be made that Trump subscribes to that view.

[Cryingdick]

So long as convicted felons in prison can vote I don't mind.

[55Jay]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Right. Nothing quite so goofy as the law. There's an excellent case to be made that Trump subscribes to that view.

It will fail and you're smart enough to know that.  But you lot will bang this gong as long as MSNBC does, and then you'll move on to whatever they tell you to regurgitate next.

 

Now, if legislation was introduced, compelling Presidential candidates to submit their tax returns for vetting, I would be all for it.  But that's not what this is about.  And you know it.

[Cryingdick]

1 minute ago, 55Jay said:

It will fail and you're smart enough to know that.  But you lot will bang this gong as long as MSNBC does, and then you'll move on to whatever they tell you to regurgitate next.

 

Now, if legislation was introduced, compelling Presidential candidates to submit their tax returns for vetting, I would be all for it.  But that's not what this is about.  And you know it.

 

He knows this already. It is going to be a game when it doesn't work. 

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Right. Nothing quite so goofy as the law. There's an excellent case to be made that Trump subscribes to that view.

It is goofy in a way, but it is a brilliant sort of way. This law may maintain that Congress has the right to inspect any given citizen's taxes, but at the same time that citizen has rights under the law; most especially the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. Like I said, it's probably headed to court.

[heybruce]

42 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Ah, so we've gone from "release because it's tradition", to "it's the law".   And now you goof balls are quoting chapter and verse, as if you've known it all along and like, duh you guys, "it's the law".  And you say Trump supporters are idiots for parroting Fox News.    LMAO!

 

This effort and the pretext behind the Ways and Means request, is as obvious as a fart in church on Sunday.  That's why it will fail.  Ought to sack the  House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-Mass) for misuse of his position and authority for political purposes. 

It really was established precedent, and there really is the law allowing Congress to examine Trump's tax returns.

 

(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 Tax-ation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any re-turn 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.   https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleF-chap61-subchapB-sec6103.pdf

 

It was a law passed by a Republican Congress as a result of the Teapot Dome scandal under Republican President Hardy.

 

For the law to be successfully challenged in the Supreme Court it would have to be shown to be unconstitutional.  How is it unconstitutional?

[lannarebirth]

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

 

7 minutes ago, heybruce said:

For the law to be successfully challenged in the Supreme Court it would have to be shown to be unconstitutional.  How is it unconstitutional?

 

For starters:

 

Quote

the clause also promises that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow fair procedures. Thus, it is not always enough for the government just to act in accordance with whatever law there may happen to be. Citizens may also be entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures, whether or not those procedures have been provided for in the law on the basis of which it is acting. Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

For starters:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

"the clause also promises that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow fair procedures."

Is Congress proposing to deprive Trump of life, liberty, or property? Due process is about law enforcement. It's entirely irrelevant to this situation.

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

It is goofy in a way, but it is a brilliant sort of way. This law may maintain that Congress has the right to inspect any given citizen's taxes, but at the same time that citizen has rights under the law; most especially the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to due process. Like I said, it's probably headed to court.

Since Congress is not part of the executive branch and doesn't have the power to prosecute someone, where does presumption of innocence enter into this?

[lannarebirth]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Since Congress is not part of the executive branch and doesn't have the power to prosecute someone, where does presumption of innocence enter into this?

 

Presumably, any body must "show cause" for singling out a citizen for examination that is prohibited under other tenets of the law.  Anyhow, neither you nor I will decide it. Let's just see what happens, eh?

 

When you say Congress doesn't have the power to prosecute someone you're including impeachment in that statement?

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by lannarebirth

[Tug]

A usfull distraction for Donald as he guts the department of homeland security to install his lackeys 

[lannarebirth]

2 minutes ago, Tug said:

A usfull distraction for Donald as he guts the department of homeland security to install his lackeys 

To what end is what I'm wondering.

[wayned]

35 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

To what end is what I'm wondering.

It'll be a real fiasco if Trump appoints Stephen Miller as the next Secretary of Homeland Security.  His confirmation hearing will be a real circus given his background, but it would certainly divert the news cycle from anything else especially if the Mueller report is released with any damaging evidence about Trump. 

[55Jay]

4 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It really was established precedent, and there really is the law allowing Congress to examine Trump's tax returns.

 

(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 Tax-ation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any re-turn 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.   https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleF-chap61-subchapB-sec6103.pdf

 

It was a law passed by a Republican Congress as a result of the Teapot Dome scandal under Republican President Hardy.

 

For the law to be successfully challenged in the Supreme Court it would have to be shown to be unconstitutional.  How is it unconstitutional?

The intent and motivation for the examination is the key here.

 

Dems think Trump is dirty, and that evidence is likely contained in his tax returns.  His potential guilt in this area has already crystallized in their minds, which makes this a quest for evidence, not a routine administrative vetting process.  

 

Ways and Means Chairman better be very careful what he says and does trying to backdoor evidence using dishonest, unethical means.  If you want to take Trump down, which they do, and everybody in the world knows that, then do it the right way and make it stick.  This path ain't it, which is why I think it'll die in legal review.

 

Apart from this, yes, Trump should have released his returns long ago IAW tradition.  I would be enthusiastic about a clean bill going forward, compelling candidates to submit tax returns during vetting for public office, and for others appointed to cabinet level positions. 

 

[spidermike007]

Trump has finally admitted that the audit was a lie, and an excuse. He was not being audited, and he made that up, like nearly everything else he says. Every president before him provided his tax returns. Trump simply has too much to hide. His tax returns are more than likely felonious, and the fraud represented within them, is probably enough to bury him. If only there was the will to do so. He is protected by the very "deep state" he rails against. Just another ruse and lie.

[wayned]

He really likes his first name "Don" Trump and acts like he thinks that is really a "Don"!

[riclag]

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

 

You've place a lot of hope in the argument that candidate Trump isn't required to show his tax returns.  That has nothing to do with this debate; these returns are being demanded of President Trump. 

 

Once again:

 

(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 Tax-ation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any re-turn 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.   https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleF-chap61-subchapB-sec6103.pdf

Read the above.

Yes it does, it has everything to do with this debate! Romney was speaking to this very topic! 

"Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) on Sunday called Democrats "moronic" for attempting to obtain President Trump's tax returns through legislative action".

 

"That’s not going to happen," Romney continued. "The courts are not going to say that you can compel a person running for office to release their tax returns."

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/437741-romney-democrats-moronic-for-going-after-trumps-tax-returns-with

You can be a POTUS and a person running for the office at the same time,Since Mr. Trump is running for office, Mr. neals argument is mute!And the uscode 2011 in this respect as well.

There is no law  saying someone running for the POTUS has to show their tax returns

Edited April 9, 2019 by riclag

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

 

 

When you say Congress doesn't have the power to prosecute someone you're including impeachment in that statement?

 

No, the House's role is not that of a prosecutor, but rather it's analogous to a grand jury. It's the Senate that would conduct the prosecution. And keep in mind that the only penalty the Senate gets to impose is removal from office. Trump wouldn't be deprived of life, liberty or property.

 

[heybruce]

13 hours ago, 55Jay said:

The intent and motivation for the examination is the key here.

 

Dems think Trump is dirty, and that evidence is likely contained in his tax returns.  His potential guilt in this area has already crystallized in their minds, which makes this a quest for evidence, not a routine administrative vetting process.  

 

Ways and Means Chairman better be very careful what he says and does trying to backdoor evidence using dishonest, unethical means.  If you want to take Trump down, which they do, and everybody in the world knows that, then do it the right way and make it stick.  This path ain't it, which is why I think it'll die in legal review.

 

Apart from this, yes, Trump should have released his returns long ago IAW tradition.  I would be enthusiastic about a clean bill going forward, compelling candidates to submit tax returns during vetting for public office, and for others appointed to cabinet level positions. 

 

The law does not require an intent for demanding the tax returns be given.  However I'm sure Congress can find enough evidence from ongoing investigations of Trump's finances, supplemented with the testimony before Congress presented by Michael Cohen, to come up with many good reasons.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, riclag said:

Yes it does, it has everything to do with this debate! Romney was speaking to this very topic! 

"Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) on Sunday called Democrats "moronic" for attempting to obtain President Trump's tax returns through legislative action".

 

"That’s not going to happen," Romney continued. "The courts are not going to say that you can compel a person running for office to release their tax returns."

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/437741-romney-democrats-moronic-for-going-after-trumps-tax-returns-with

You can be a POTUS and a person running for the office at the same time,Since Mr. Trump is running for office, Mr. neals argument is mute!And the uscode 2011 in this respect as well.

There is no law  saying someone running for the POTUS has to show their tax returns

Is it your, and Romney's, argument that a person running for office is above the law?  If so I call BS, the law makes no exceptions for candidates for public office.

[wayned]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The law does not require an intent for demanding the tax returns be given.  However I'm sure Congress can find enough evidence from ongoing investigations of Trump's finances, supplemented with the testimony before Congress presented by Michael Cohen, to come up with many good reasons.

Actually you are wrong.  The Ways and Means committee can not just demand that anyone turn over his taxes, there must be a reason other than harassment.  In this case they have requested that the tax returns be turned over  so that they can determine is the IRS has performed there duties to audit the returns of the President every year as they are required by law.  It is an oversight function and is legal.  Trump's attorney's will call it "presidential harassment" and it will be up to the courts to make a decision.

[heybruce]

32 minutes ago, wayned said:

Actually you are wrong.  The Ways and Means committee can not just demand that anyone turn over his taxes, there must be a reason other than harassment.  In this case they have requested that the tax returns be turned over  so that they can determine is the IRS has performed there duties to audit the returns of the President every year as they are required by law.  It is an oversight function and is legal.  Trump's attorney's will call it "presidential harassment" and it will be up to the courts to make a decision.

There is a lot of tedious reading in the link I provided, but nowhere in it did I see anything stating the Ways and Means committee must provide a reason for demanding the tax returns.  The taxes must be not be released outside the committee unless certain conditions are met, but the law appears to give Ways and Means the right to examine anyone's taxes without giving a reason.

 

However if the courts decide a reason must be given, I have no doubt many legitimate reasons can be provided.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

There is a lot of tedious reading in the link I provided, but nowhere in it did I see anything stating the Ways and Means committee must provide a reason for demanding the tax returns.  The taxes must be not be released outside the committee unless certain conditions are met, but the law appears to give Ways and Means the right to examine anyone's taxes without giving a reason.

 

However if the courts decide a reason must be given, I have no doubt many legitimate reasons can be provided.

Vox interviewed 11 eminent law professors about whether Congress can compel the IRS to hand over the tax returns. At least 2 of those professors are clearly conservative in their political opinions. Not one of them said Congress couldn't do it.  

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts

[Jingthing]

Never ain't what it used to be ...

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/congress-steve-mnuchin-trump-taxes-mick-mulvaney.html

 

Quote

How Democrats in Congress Could Easily—and Quickly—Get Their Hands on Trump’s Taxes

 

Grab him by the tax returns!

[wayned]

Yep, Al (Donald Trump) Capone!

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 5:46 PM, keemapoot said:

My kind of conservatism loves private enterprise, but also loves globalism and all the opportunities for capitalist expansion that offers (as most of my fellow traditional conservatives also believe and unlike Trump); I don't care about socialism for other countries to practice, but I never worry about the US even approaching anything remotely like socialism (just scare mongering by Trump); yes, don't like unfettered illegal immigration, but there is more to stopping it than a symbolic wall, sure don't want terrorists or drugs entering the US, but shutting borders as idiot Trump proposed is just plain stupid; sure am ok with conservatives on the bench, so long as the bench is balanced (who wants a loaded court in either direction?), and anyway, studies have proven that once on the bench, you cannot depend on conservatives voting reliably that way on every issue anyway, so that's kind of a dumb one; and finally, yes I love guns and support owning them, but think there should be some reasonable restraint in this age of mass school yard killings; and frankly don't give a crap about religion, never did but think evangelicals are wackos.

 

I voted for and supported Reagan and Bush Sr., and other conservatives. I also liked Bill Clinton, but hated Bush Jr.. I hate Trump. Now, tell me, what am I, liberal or conservative, and why do I hate Trump so much?

 

 

Why do you hate Trump? Without an in depth psychological analysis I can't answer that.

I never supported Trump for POTUS as long as  Bernie was in the running, but soon as they stabbed him in the back it became all about stopping her from winning

Edited April 10, 2019 by thaibeachlovers

[bristolboy]

7 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why do you hate Trump? Without an in depth psychological analysis I can't answer that.

I never supported Trump for POTUS as long as  Bernie was in the running, but soon as they stabbed him in the back it became all about stopping her from winning

Oh, please. The same person who claims he was a Sanders supporter is dead set against Warren and wants Trump to triumph over her. What policy differences are there between Sanders and Warren that make you object to her candidacy so much? For that matter, how could someone who claims to have supported Sanders and presumably his stances on the issues, now be such an inveterate defender of Donald Trump. Who do you think you're fooling? Just more concern trolling.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Oh, please. The same person who claims he was a Sanders supporter is dead set against Warren and wants Trump to triumph over her. What policy differences are there between Sanders and Warren that make you object to her candidacy so much? For that matter, how could someone who claims to have supported Sanders and presumably his stances on the issues, now be such an inveterate defender of Donald Trump. Who do you think you're fooling? Just more concern trolling.

Who asked you to butt In?

I will say though that I just don't like her at all, so not going to support seeing her on the tv for years.

Now, deflect away on someone else.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Vox interviewed 11 eminent law professors about whether Congress can compel the IRS to hand over the tax returns. At least 2 of those professors are clearly conservative in their political opinions. Not one of them said Congress couldn't do it.  

https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts

Does Trump give a monkey's about 11 eminent law professor's opinions? Does Trump intend to comply with a Democrat witch hunt on a fishing expedition? Can I go to the moon tomorrow?

Edited April 10, 2019 by thaibeachlovers