1 hour ago, 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. ????

Not quite.

 

After two years of failing to perform their Constitutional duty of holding the executive in check, the Republicans lost control of the House.

 

The Democrats are more than keen to perform these Constitutional duties.

 

What a difference a House majority makes.

14 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

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.

You claim the law was written for the secretary  and it was implemented for Conflict of Interests and corruption! The POTUS isn't subjected to laws relating to conflict of interest.So the bases of this law for a employee of the Gov in regards to a POTUS doesn't take into consideration the constitution in the respect of the office.

Mr. Romney said going after the POTUS taxes by the Dem's is moronic ,boy is that a understatement

Edited April 10, 20197 yr by riclag

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Not quite.

 

After two years of failing to perform their Constitutional duty of holding the executive in check, the Republicans lost control of the House.

 

The Democrats are more than keen to perform these Constitutional duties.

 

What a difference a House majority makes.

Yes, it's their turn at the trough.

 

Dems have periodic spasms about Trump's tax returns since before he got into WH.  For now, it'll bridge the gap in the news cycle and keep pressure on Trump until we get the Mueller report, and can get back to the redaction issue.

 

Nice story though, I like the way you tell it. 

41 minutes ago, riclag said:

You claim the law was written for the secretary  and it was implemented for Conflict of Interests and corruption! The POTUS isn't subjected to laws relating to conflict of interest.So the bases of this law for a employee of the Gov in regards to a POTUS doesn't take into consideration the constitution in the respect of the office.

Mr. Romney said going after the POTUS taxes by the Dem's is moronic ,boy is that a understatement

Please. Whatever the historical reasons for the law, they are irrelevant to the text of it. And citing a Republican senator as some kind of impartial arbiter of the issue is self-serving.

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

"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."

The Potus has a unique position in  my countries Gov. This law you speak of was implemented for the Sec of treasury office because of conflict of interest involving business interests. The Office of the POTUS isn't subjected to the same laws especially Conflicts of Interest which he is immune from. Please,Go take your politics else where. 

Conflict of Interest Laws

Legally speaking, the president is not subject to any conflict of interest law simply by virtue of his or her office. Title 18 Section 208 of the United States Code is the relevant provision concerning conflicts of interest of officers and employees of the executive branch. 

http://law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-4/issue-special/essays-interviews/conflicts-president-law-trump-presidency.html

Edited April 10, 20197 yr by riclag

3 hours ago, riclag said:

The Potus has a unique position in  my countries Gov. This law you speak of was implemented for the Sec of treasury office because of conflict of interest involving business interests. The Office of the POTUS isn't subjected to the same laws especially Conflicts of Interest which he is immune from. Please,Go take your politics else where. 

Conflict of Interest Laws

Legally speaking, the president is not subject to any conflict of interest law simply by virtue of his or her office. Title 18 Section 208 of the United States Code is the relevant provision concerning conflicts of interest of officers and employees of the executive branch. 

http://law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-4/issue-special/essays-interviews/conflicts-president-law-trump-presidency.html

Well, he may not be subject to criminal penalties for conflict of interest, but that doesn't mean it should be outside the purview of Congress. Consider the case of the FBI headquarters move which was years in the planning. Suddenly it's put to a halt. Maybe just a coincidence that the plot it occupies would be perfect competition for it neighbor: the Trump hotel in D.C. Or what role his interests played in the 2017 tax bill which seems to massively favor pass through entities and real estate interests. Oddly enough.

7 hours ago, 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. ????

And all of a sudden the Trump supporters on TV are legal experts, who know more about this subject than real legal experts:   https://www.vox.com/2019/4/9/18296806/trump-tax-returns-congress-legal-experts

 

Why do you explain your in-depth legal expertise, or, if you have none, provide some evidence that true, objective legal experts agree that Trump's tax returns will not be released.

5 hours ago, riclag said:

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

POTUS is above conflicts of interest?  Then what is the Emoluments clause for?

 

Besides, if there are technically no conflict of interest penalties that apply to the President, that makes it even more critical that Congress perform its oversight responsibilities diligently.

Trump says he won’t release tax returns because of audit, contradicting his own IRS chief as deadline looms

"President Trump doubled down on his dubious claim Wednesday that he can’t release his tax returns because they remain under audit, contradicting comments made by his own IRS chief a day before...

IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig set the record straight Tuesday that there’s nothing stopping Trump from allowing the public to scrutinize his finances, whether or not they’re under audit.

“I think I’ve answered that question: No,” Rettig testified before the House Appropriations Committee after a Democratic member asked if audits prevent taxpayers from releasing their returns."

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-trump-tax-returns-audit-irs-commissioner-deadline-20190410-o5lfzkuh2ba5rktwwumgi342l4-story.html

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 6:11 PM, wayned said:

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?

For months and months the Dems were using the Impeach 45 mantra, without any hope of doing so. Now they have something they could actually use to impeach, but not a whisper about it. 

He thinks he's above the law. Time to call his bluff.

 

Quote

 

Mnuchin’s act of abject lawlessness

 

The announcement that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin would not provide six years of President Trump’s tax returns by the deadline given by the House Ways and Means Committee chairman was just the latest in a long series of egregious attacks on the rule of law. Perhaps it felt more egregious than some because the law at issue is so clear (the Treasury Department “shall” provide them) and the administration’s conduct is so indefensible.
 

Even jaded legal experts versed in the Trump administration’s lawlessness were taken aback by this brazen defiance of the law.

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/12/another-act-abject-lawlessness/

Edited April 12, 20197 yr by Jingthing

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

He thinks he's above the law. Time to call his bluff.

 

 

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/12/another-act-abject-lawlessness/

Tell it to the judge.

Well shall is pretty unambiguous that being said it depends on Donald seeding the courts with enough todys to attempt to do his bidding but eventually they will come out

13 hours ago, Kelsall said:

Tell it to the judge.

No doubt he will.

Have to admit that I haven't read through the thread, but surely all politicians should be required to make public their tax returns?

17 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Have to admit that I haven't read through the thread, but surely all politicians should be required to make public their tax returns?

 

There oughta be a law!

1 hour ago, lannarebirth said:

 

There oughta be a law!

That would be great, it would deter some shady characters from running for office. 

 

Perhaps Trump will provide the impetus to write such a law.  However Mitch "must protect Trump" McConnell won't ever allow a vote in the Senate on such a law.

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

That would be great, it would deter some shady characters from running for office. 

 

Perhaps Trump will provide the impetus to write such a law.  However Mitch "must protect Trump" McConnell won't ever allow a vote in the Senate on such a law.

 

Thank goodness for"States Rights".

I'm surprised that someone hasn't gone after his New York State Tax returns.  They certainly are not protected by the IRS and Mnunchin and Governor Cuomo is a Democrat and much of the supporting documentation would be the same as he used on the Federal Returns.  Maybe SDNY already has them..

8 minutes ago, wayned said:

I'm surprised that someone hasn't gone after his New York State Tax returns.  They certainly are not protected by the IRS and Mnunchin and Governor Cuomo is a Democrat and much of the supporting documentation would be the same as he used on the Federal Returns.  Maybe SDNY already has them..

Push to Obtain Trump’s N.Y. Tax Returns Wins Cuomo’s Support

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/nyregion/trump-tax-returns-cuomo.html

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

That would be great, it would deter some shady characters from running for office. 

 

Perhaps Trump will provide the impetus to write such a law.  However Mitch "must protect Trump" McConnell won't ever allow a vote in the Senate on such a law.

It's pretty obvious that no politician would support such a law.....

41 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

It's pretty obvious that no politician would support such a law.....

 

"H.R. 1—or the “For the People Act“—moves to expand early voting, reform redistricting, automate voter registration, restore protections from the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and implement stricter disclosure rules for campaigns and other political activities.

It also includes a provision to require all presidential candidates to disclose a decade of tax returns—a move that directly goes against President Donald Trump’s decision to keep his tax returns private—and another that would make Election Day a federal holiday."    http://fortune.com/2019/03/08/house-for-the-people-act-passes/

 

Obviously a great many politicians will.  However Mitch McConnell will not allow the subject to come up in the Senate.

 

" Responding to action in the House, Senate Democrats unveiled their own version of a sweeping election and ethics reform bill Wednesday — one that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed never to bring to a vote."    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-democrats-push-to-match-houses-ethics-and-election-reforms/2019/03/27/a46a6880-50a4-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html?utm_term=.22085c121e35

   

2 hours ago, wayned said:

I'm surprised that someone hasn't gone after his New York State Tax returns.  They certainly are not protected by the IRS and Mnunchin and Governor Cuomo is a Democrat and much of the supporting documentation would be the same as he used on the Federal Returns.  Maybe SDNY already has them..

As I believe was mentioned in the article, the IRS could sue to thwart enactment of the law. Their argument would be that since the state tax returns depend on federal returns, in effect the state would be violating taxpayer privacy laws. It seems to me that's a strong argument.

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As I believe was mentioned in the article, the IRS could sue to thwart enactment of the law. Their argument would be that since the state tax returns depend on federal returns, in effect the state would be violating taxpayer privacy laws. It seems to me that's a strong argument.

If there is a demonstrated need for the tax information in order to pursue a legitimate criminal investigation, there is a strong counter-argument.

 

Also, if the information required for the state investigation is now part of the state tax returns, even if it originated in the federal returns, it is now held by the state.  I don't think the IRS can do anything about that.

10 hours ago, heybruce said:

If there is a demonstrated need for the tax information in order to pursue a legitimate criminal investigation, there is a strong counter-argument.

 

Also, if the information required for the state investigation is now part of the state tax returns, even if it originated in the federal returns, it is now held by the state.  I don't think the IRS can do anything about that.

I think your first point is a good one. As for the second, not so much. 

20 hours ago, heybruce said:

 

"H.R. 1—or the “For the People Act“—moves to expand early voting, reform redistricting, automate voter registration, restore protections from the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and implement stricter disclosure rules for campaigns and other political activities.

It also includes a provision to require all presidential candidates to disclose a decade of tax returns—a move that directly goes against President Donald Trump’s decision to keep his tax returns private—and another that would make Election Day a federal holiday."    http://fortune.com/2019/03/08/house-for-the-people-act-passes/

 

Obviously a great many politicians will.  However Mitch McConnell will not allow the subject to come up in the Senate.

 

" Responding to action in the House, Senate Democrats unveiled their own version of a sweeping election and ethics reform bill Wednesday — one that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed never to bring to a vote."    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/senate-democrats-push-to-match-houses-ethics-and-election-reforms/2019/03/27/a46a6880-50a4-11e9-88a1-ed346f0ec94f_story.html?utm_term=.22085c121e35

   

Surely it would be better for all politicians to declare their tax returns - not just presidential candidates?

5 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Surely it would be better for all politicians to declare their tax returns - not just presidential candidates?

Yes it would.  Passing H.R. 1 is an obvious, and obviously needed, first step.  Once passed it would make it difficult to oppose expanding the requirement to other federal elected offices and appointed positions;

On ‎4‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 10:11 PM, Longcut said:

What law?

 

Quote

 

26 U.S. Code § 6103

(f) Disclosure to Committees of Congress

(1) Committee on Ways and Means, Committee on Finance, and Joint Committee on Taxation

Upon written request from the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the Committee on Finance of the Senate, or the chairman of the Joint Committee on Taxation, the Secretary shall furnish such committee with any return or return information specified in such request, except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

 

 

if the irs under obama didnt dig up anything substantial about trump it is simply a waste of time and resources at this point

11 minutes ago, atyclb said:

if the irs under obama didnt dig up anything substantial about trump it is simply a waste of time and resources at this point

Trump is many things, but stupid ain't one of them.

Like all rich people in the US, he will, IMO, be paying people to hide anything dodgy from discovery.