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

[Jingthing]

5 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.

Exactly. Fooling nobody. 

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎4‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 4:29 PM, 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. 

 

Without a law requiring such, no one can compel Trump to voluntarily hand over his personal information for public scrutiny, and if the committee gets it, it'll be leaked in about a microsecond.

This could still be waiting for a SCOTUS decision after he leaves office in 2025.

[wayned]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Without a law requiring such, no one can compel Trump to voluntarily hand over his personal information for public scrutiny, and if the committee gets it, it'll be leaked in about a microsecond.

This could still be waiting for a SCOTUS decision after he leaves office in 2025.

There already is a law and it is written into the IRS regulations stating that the IRS "shall" turn over the requested tax returns.  How's the landscape on the moon?

[Jingthing]

Just now, wayned said:

There already is a law and it is written into the IRS regulations stating that the IRS "shall" turn over the requested tax returns.  How's the landscape on the moon?

Exactly, and now the 45 regime is flouting the law. Again. 

[heybruce]

15 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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?

In other words, you don't think Trump has to obey the law.

9 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Without a law requiring such, no one can compel Trump to voluntarily hand over his personal information for public scrutiny, and if the committee gets it, it'll be leaked in about a microsecond.

This could still be waiting for a SCOTUS decision after he leaves office in 2025.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, there is a law that requires the IRS to hand over Trump's tax returns, and Trump can't do anything but attempt to stall with futile court challenges.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, wayned said:

There already is a law and it is written into the IRS regulations stating that the IRS "shall" turn over the requested tax returns.  How's the landscape on the moon?

IF, that is the case, what the <deleted> <deleted> is all the fuss about? The committee can just follow procedure and they will be delivered, but of course that way wouldn't be helpful to attacking Trump, would it?

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

In other words, you don't think Trump has to obey the law.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, there is a law that requires the IRS to hand over Trump's tax returns, and Trump can't do anything but attempt to stall with futile court challenges.

Your post makes zero sense. If the law requires the IRS to hand over the returns, it is up to the IRS to hand them over, not Trump. If you are in fact correct, Trump has no say in the matter.

 

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

IF, that is the case, what the <deleted> <deleted> is all the fuss about? The committee can just follow procedure and they will be delivered, but of course that way wouldn't be helpful to attacking Trump, would it?

They are following procedure.

 

The WH is butting in, even though it is a Congress request to IRS, no WH involvement whatsoever. Nobody was attacking Trump, except that he made it personal, so yes, attacks were imminent.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, stevenl said:

They are following procedure.

 

The WH is butting in, even though it is a Congress request to IRS, no WH involvement whatsoever. Nobody was attacking Trump, except that he made it personal, so yes, attacks were imminent.

Well I wish they'd all shut up about it and just do it then.

Seems to me it's just another stick to beat Trump with though.

[wayned]

3 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Your post makes zero sense. If the law requires the IRS to hand over the returns, it is up to the IRS to hand them over, not Trump. If you are in fact correct, Trump has no say in the matter.

 

The director of the iRS works for Secretary Minuchin and , guess what, Minuchin works for Trump and Trump has instructed him to not turn over the returns no matter what the law says since he thinks that he is above the law!  And there we are, "obstruction of justice and abuse of power".  Once a scumbag, always a scumbag!

[thaibeachlovers]

2 minutes ago, wayned said:

The director of the iRS works for Secretary Minuchin and , guess what, Minuchin works for Trump and Trump has instructed him to not turn over the returns no matter what the law says since he thinks that he is above the law!  And there we are, "obstruction of justice and abuse of power".  Once a scumbag, always a scumbag!

If that's true, Congress can use it to impeach Trump. So far nothing on that front has been voiced though- wonder why?

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If that's true, Congress can use it to impeach Trump. So far nothing on that front has been voiced though- wonder why?

Have to follow procedures first.

[wayned]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If that's true, Congress can use it to impeach Trump. So far nothing on that front has been voiced though- wonder why?

First, even if Trump's IRS returns were squeaky clean he would still object jsut to continue to cause chaos which he thrives on.

 

Second, why would the House impeach him knowing full well that the Senate doesn't have the gonads to convict him?

[heybruce]

38 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Your post makes zero sense. If the law requires the IRS to hand over the returns, it is up to the IRS to hand them over, not Trump. If you are in fact correct, Trump has no say in the matter.

 

Is it finally dawning on you?  Yes, the law requires the IRS to hand over Trump's tax returns when requested by the Ways and Means committee.  That is what this topic is about.  That is why I keep posting this:

 

(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 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.    https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2011-title26/pdf/USCODE-2011-title26-subtitleF-chap61-subchapB-sec6103.pdf

 

[55Jay]

11 hours 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.

Ever heard of the 4th Amendment?

 

If Dems, or SC Bob Mueller for that matter, have/had enough evidence to force the non-consensual release of Trump's tax returns, they would have already.  Some believe Mueller already had Trump's returns, legally.   He certainly had the authority and latitude to do that, just ask Paul Manafort.

 

What they are doing now is floating an intentionally obtuse interpretation of non-criminal/routine procedures in the IRS Code, and misrepresenting their intent.  It's such a flagrant lie and obvious manipulation, which is why it won't work.  Dems probably know this but hey, it scores points with the fan boys and keeps the pressure on Trump in the media.  Constant harassment, death by a thousand cuts, etc.  Same stupid game Repubs play when they're on stage.

 

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, wayned said:

There already is a law and it is written into the IRS regulations stating that the IRS "shall" turn over the requested tax returns.  How's the landscape on the moon?

Sounds pretty straight forward.  

Why hasn't it happened yet?  What's the delay?

Edited April 10, 2019 by 55Jay

[wayned]

1 minute ago, 55Jay said:

Sounds pretty straight forward.  Why hasn't it happened yet?  What the delay? 

It is straightforward but Minuchin, the white house consul and Trump think that they are above the law and Trump will have them fight it to keep him in the spotlight in the current news cycle which is better than the situation that is happening on the southern border.  Govern by chaos, diversion and BS!

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Sounds pretty straight forward.  

Why hasn't it happened yet?  What's the delay?

You're really impatient.  The letter to the IRS was sent less than one week ago. 

[heybruce]

28 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Ever heard of the 4th Amendment?

 

If Dems, or SC Bob Mueller for that matter, have/had enough evidence to force the non-consensual release of Trump's tax returns, they would have already.  Some believe Mueller already had Trump's returns, legally.   He certainly had the authority and latitude to do that, just ask Paul Manafort.

 

What they are doing now is floating an intentionally obtuse interpretation of non-criminal/routine procedures in the IRS Code, and misrepresenting their intent.  It's such a flagrant lie and obvious manipulation, which is why it won't work.  Dems probably know this but hey, it scores points with the fan boys and keeps the pressure on Trump in the media.  Constant harassment, death by a thousand cuts, etc.  Same stupid game Repubs play when they're on stage.

 

It's unlikely that a review of tax returns by members of the House Ways and Means Committee will be considered an unreasonable search and seizure.

 

The Democrats have only been in a position to demand these tax returns since January.  I assume they were waiting to see if the Mueller report would make this action unnecessary.

 

The law being used was passed by a Republican Congress in 1924 in order to examine the tax returns of a Republican President following the Teapot Dome scandal.  Doing this kind of investigation is clearly the intent of the law.

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Sounds pretty straight forward.  

Why hasn't it happened yet?  What's the delay?

It's really a bizarre to hear a supporter of Trump question a delay of a few months. Where's that health care reform Trump has been promising since before the election? And the trillion dollar infrustructure bill?

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

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.

Start your own forum or send PM's if you don't want others  to "butt in." And good to know that your reasons for supporting certain politicians have nothing to do with rationality or consistency. For you, apparently, it's just a beauty contest and the policies that politicians advance are entirely irrelevant to you.

[55Jay]

Just now, wayned said:

It is straightforward but Minuchin, the white house consul and Trump think that they are above the law and Trump will have them fight it to keep him in the spotlight in the current news cycle which is better than the situation that is happening on the southern border.  Govern by chaos, diversion and BS!

After 2 years, all the sudden some staffer digs up a reg in the IRS Code and our Chairman punts to see if it'll stick.  And now all the internet authorities on TVF are regurgitating the new meme, "Hey man, it's the LAW!".   You guys are almost as bad as the Fox News Zombies.

 

The ends don't justify the means, so when this gets shot down in flames, we'll have to endure hearing Trump's sing-song carnival barker voice chortling the same shit about winning another victory over the Dem Witch Hunt Harassment Campaign.  Lovely. ????

[riclag]

2 hours ago, wayned said:

The director of the iRS works for Secretary Minuchin and , guess what, Minuchin works for Trump and Trump has instructed him to not turn over the returns no matter what the law says since he thinks that he is above the law!  And there we are, "obstruction of justice and abuse of power".  Once a scumbag, always a scumbag!

Conspiracy theories 

Edited April 10, 2019 by riclag

[bristolboy]

Just now, 55Jay said:

After 2 years, all the sudden some staffer digs up a reg in the IRS Code and our Chairman punts to see if it'll stick.  And now all the internet authorities on TVF are regurgitating the new meme, "Hey man, it's the LAW!".   You guys are almost as bad as the Fox News Zombies.

 

The ends don't justify the means, so when this gets shot down in flames, we'll have to endure hearing Trump's sing-song carnival barker voice chortling the same shit about winning another victory over the Dem Witch Hunt Harassment Campaign.  Lovely. ????

It's not a reg in the IRS code. It's part of a law expressly passed by Congress in 1924. in response to scandals in the Harding administration. Before that law was passed, the only person who could legally release IRS returns was the President.

[55Jay]

53 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It's really a bizarre to hear a supporter of Trump question a delay of a few months. Where's that health care reform Trump has been promising since before the election? And the trillion dollar infrustructure bill?

Trump supporter.  LMAO! 

[55Jay]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

It's not a reg in the IRS code. It's part of a law expressly passed by Congress in 1924. in response to scandals in the Harding administration. Before that law was passed, the only person who could legally release IRS returns was the President.

First it was section(s) of the IRS code, regurgitated by legal expert, Heybruce.  Teapot revelation next.  I'm intrigued and same as you, I have no choice but to sit here and see how THIS mystery unfolds.

 

Conflicting comments as far as having patience for more than a week or a "few months".  And then out comes the latest course change, citing law from 1924.  Quoted sections of the IRS Code didn't fall out of the sky last week either.

 

2+ years off and on bangin' on about Trump's tax returns.  Special Counsel ended like a shart.   Who knows, maybe this one will work. Worth a try.  Even if it doesn't, the effort serves the concurrent, underlying political objective.

 

"Is this it?"

No.

"How about this?"

No.  Try again.

"Here?"

No. 

"Can I phone a friend?"

Edited April 10, 2019 by 55Jay

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

First it was section(s) of the IRS code, regurgitated by legal expert, Heybruce.  Teapot revelation next.  I'm intrigued and same as you, I have no choice but to sit here and see how THIS mystery unfolds.

 

Conflicting comments as far as having patience for more than a week or a "few months".  And then out comes the latest course change, citing law from 1924.  Quoted sections of the IRS Code didn't fall out of the sky last week either.

 

2+ years off and on bangin' on about Trump's tax returns.  Special Counsel ended like a shart.   Who knows, maybe this one will work.  Even if it doesn't, the effort serves the concurrent, underlying political objective.  Until then, Dems carry on playing blindfolded birthday party games. 

 

"Is this it?"

No.

"How about this?"

No.  Try again.

"Here?"

No. 

"Can I phone a friend?"

I can't help it if you don't know about the existence of this law. It's featured in plenty of news articles. Even Fox News acknowledges its existence:

"The 1924 law states that the Treasury Department “shall” turn over “any return or return information” requested by the chairs of the tax committees or the head of Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. The law was implemented amid widespread concerns over corruption and conflicts of interest by then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s business interests."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-tax-returns-will-be-target-of-democrats-probe-if-they-win-house-in-midterms

There is no cure for willful ignorance.

 

[55Jay]

10 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I can't help it if you don't know about the existence of this law. It's featured in plenty of news articles. Even Fox News acknowledges its existence:

"The 1924 law states that the Treasury Department “shall” turn over “any return or return information” requested by the chairs of the tax committees or the head of Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. The law was implemented amid widespread concerns over corruption and conflicts of interest by then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s business interests."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-tax-returns-will-be-target-of-democrats-probe-if-they-win-house-in-midterms

There is no cure for willful ignorance.

 

Yeah yeah, I read it on duh internets about the same time as you did a couple days ago.  But you're the smart one, aincha!  ???? 

 

Edit: I didn't open the fox link but the title.... that's the underlying political objective behind all these clumsy attempts that fizzle out.  Side stepping that glaring fact is..... willful ignorance.

Edited April 10, 2019 by 55Jay

[riclag]

21 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I can't help it if you don't know about the existence of this law. It's featured in plenty of news articles. Even Fox News acknowledges its existence:

"The 1924 law states that the Treasury Department “shall” turn over “any return or return information” requested by the chairs of the tax committees or the head of Congress’ nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation. The law was implemented amid widespread concerns over corruption and conflicts of interest by then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon’s business interests."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-tax-returns-will-be-target-of-democrats-probe-if-they-win-house-in-midterms

There is no cure for willful ignorance.

 

Is that why the law was written  for the Tres Sec A. mellon conflicts of interest! Well it's mute

He ain't a POTUS . The Potus office is above Conflicts of Interest

Edited April 10, 2019 by riclag

[bristolboy]

13 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

Yeah yeah, I read it on duh internets about the same time as you did a couple days ago.  But you're the smart one, aincha!  ???? 

 

Edit: I didn't open the fox link but the title.... that's the underlying political objective behind all these clumsy attempts that fizzle out.  Side stepping that glaring fact is..... willful ignorance.

But I'm not the one who voiced such untruths as though this information dropped just a couple of days ago. For instance, that article from Fox News that I linked to dates from September 30, 2018. Stop trying to project your level of ignorance onto others. This is old news.