Trump's Claim of Gaza Visit Draws Scrutiny Amid Factual Discrepancies

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

Mob run unions? Really? What century are you living in? The last significant mob run union was the Teamsters. And they supported Republicans. You keep on betraying your right wing prejudices.

 

Well, mine was, or at least the pension fund was. Cleaned out with regularity. Best advice I ever got was to take a "lump sum retirement". I did it twice.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, lannarebirth said:

 

Well, mine was, or at least the pension fund was. Cleaned out with regularity. Best advice I ever got was to take a "lump sum retirement". I did it twice.

And what union was that?

[mikebike]

9 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

Donations from Mob run unions?  Anyway, you're missing the point, or I gave a poor example.

Why choose the obvious, incorrect, gaslighting, bogeyman? Labour unions are obviously big money donors. 

 

Clearly new Dems prefer small donations from individuals... you seem to follow the news, why lie?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

Why choose the obvious, incorrect, gaslighting, bogeyman? Labour unions are obviously big money donors. 

 

Clearly new Dems prefer small donations from individuals... you seem to follow the news, why lie?

The thing is, the last national union in cahoots with the mob was the Teamsters. And they overwhelmingly supported Republicans. In fact, most of the labor movement was never mobbed up. And people who equate labor unions with the mob are clearly spouting right wing nonsense. What is wrong with accepting money from labor unions?

[lannarebirth]

1 minute ago, mikebike said:

Why choose the obvious, incorrect, gaslighting, bogeyman? Labour unions are obviously big money donors. 

 

Clearly new Dems prefer small donations from individuals... you seem to follow the news, why lie?

I was tieing in your "working class past".  Anyhow, I like the small donation path from millions and millions of individuals. I currently make small donations to 2 campaigns. I would prefer a federally funded campaign war chest. Takes money off the table and allows more time for ideas.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, hyku1147 said:

Trump is allowing the Democrats to continue to dig their own 2020 grave. They have a tiger, whom they think is a house cat, by the tail. They are playing checkers, whilst Trump is playing chess.

 

2020 - "We hate Trump!" LOL!

Yes his recent claim that Republicans are going to forge ahead with a new health care plan, and then renege on that, was a stroke of pure genius. And shutting down the budget and retreating on that was another Macchiavellian ploy. And his negotiations with Kim, sheer genius.

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

I was tieing in your "working class past".  Anyhow, I like the small donation path from millions and millions of individuals. I currently make small donations to 2 campaigns. I would prefer a federally funded campaign war chest. Takes money off the table and allows more time for ideas.

The history of labour unions in the USA is a long and winding one... there was a time when they were indisputablely necessary... then there was a time when some unions became as enamoured with power as any other establishment entity.

 

Anyway, was referencing working class people, not entities. Sorry for the confusion.

 

Agreed that publicly funded campaigns would be the ultimate goal.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎4‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 1:06 PM, webfact said:

"The legal implications of this request could affect protections for all Americans against politically-motivated disclosures of personal tax information, regardless of which party is in power," Mnuchin said.

 

The Dems should be careful of what they wish for.

It'll be tied up in court for years, and eventually he will be shown, IMO, to have nothing criminal in them.
Billionaires that are at risk of being audited by the IRS are not in the habit of putting incriminating evidence in tax returns. They employ lots of clever people to make sure of that.

Anyway, Trump can tie it up in court for the next 6 years and drive the Dems crazy, till he leaves office.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Dems should be careful of what they wish for.

It'll be tied up in court for years, and eventually he will be shown, IMO, to have nothing criminal in them.
Billionaires that are at risk of being audited by the IRS are not in the habit of putting incriminating evidence in tax returns. They employ lots of clever people to make sure of that.

Anyway, Trump can tie it up in court for the next 6 years and drive the Dems crazy, till he leaves office.

Whether or not Trump will be reelected, your belief that this can be tied up for 6 years betrays your utter lack of knowledge of the court system in the USA.

[simple1]

21 minutes ago, hyku1147 said:

Trump is allowing the Democrats to continue to dig their own 2020 grave. They have a tiger, whom they think is a house cat, by the tail. They are playing checkers, whilst Trump is playing chess.

 

2020 - "We hate Trump!" LOL!

Given trump's attention span, constant policy U Turns etc etc suggest you're wrong in your estimation of trump

[lannarebirth]

6 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The Dems should be careful of what they wish for.

It'll be tied up in court for years, and eventually he will be shown, IMO, to have nothing criminal in them.
Billionaires that are at risk of being audited by the IRS are not in the habit of putting incriminating evidence in tax returns. They employ lots of clever people to make sure of that.

Anyway, Trump can tie it up in court for the next 6 years and drive the Dems crazy, till he leaves office.

 

The billionaires are winning.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/irs-created-seal-team-6-to-go-after-superrich-failed-2019-4

[bristolboy]

20 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The billionaires are winning.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/irs-created-seal-team-6-to-go-after-superrich-failed-2019-4

Thanks to Republicans  it's actually gotten a lot worse:

How the IRS Was Gutted

 In short order, Charles Rettig, then a high-powered tax lawyer and today President Donald Trump's IRS commissioner, warned that the squad was conducting "the audits from hell."

https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-irs-was-gutted

 

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal, again.

[candide]

2 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

Concentrate on what he's doing for the country and not fake sex scandals, Russian fairy tales or tax records.

 

2 hours ago, Becker said:

Well I did for about a millisecond and came up with nothing positive at all.

You are being nasty. He must have achieved something such as...well...ahem...????

[isaanjohnno]

Trump-the epitome of the non taxpaying carpetbagger. 

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, lannarebirth said:

 

The billionaires are winning.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/irs-created-seal-team-6-to-go-after-superrich-failed-2019-4

Unfortunately I have to agree, the big money has gained momentum, it is all about money money these days.

[Srikcir]

5 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Actually, if you look it up, you would find that the court would decide not on that basis, but whether the inquiry is in service of a legitimate legislative purpose.

There is no such requirement for ANY under the law or Delegation.

There is no interpretation required by the Executive Branch nor by any of its officers.

The law is an order to produce upon demand. Period.

Trump and DOJ will have to prove both the law and Delegation of Authority (from Department of Treasury to IRS Commissioner) are unconstitutional.

 

And here's the scary all Americans thing if they succeed. If the law to provide the tax information to Congress is unconstitutional, so then are the penalties.

 

Under 26 U.S. Code Section 7214(a)(3), Offenses by officers and employees of the United States:

Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States—

• who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

With invalidation of the Law and Delegation of Authority, any employee of the IRS can SAFELY reveal tax return information of ANY US tax filer without consequences.

 

[Ahab]

21 hours ago, bristolboy said:

As has been cited ad nauseam, your assertion us utterly false. A 1924 law specifically gave the Congressional committes in charge of tax laws the right to demand the tax returns of any American.  Here's an excerpt from Judge Napolitano via foxnews.com

"In 1924, Congress passed the Revenue Act, which allows the House Ways & Means chair or the Senate Finance chairman to solicit from the IRS the tax returns of anyone.

It was signed into law by Calvin Coolidge in the wake of President Warren Harding's Teapot Dome Scandal, and nicknamed the Mellon Bill after wealthy banker-turned-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon."

https://insider.foxnews.com/2019/04/09/judge-napolitano-trump-tax-return-demand-richie-neal-ways-means

 

You are as impervious to facts as is Trump.

As normal your information is completely inaccurate, and my post was accurate. For one thing the regulations regarding IRS information have changed in major ways since 1924. Personal Identifying Information (PII) and Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) as well as modern computers and data bases were not around in 1924. A quick check of the IRS website clearly shows that tax returns and tax return information is considered SBU data that cannot be released without the consent of the taxpayer in question. https://www.irs.gov/irm/part10/irm_10-005-001

 

Next time try sourcing your information from somewhere more reliable than a talking head on a news channel. You might not have noticed but most of them have been completely wrong on a wide variety of topics related to Trump over the past year.

 

Someone is impervious to facts but in this particular instance it is not I.

 

[direction BANGKOK]

On 4/11/2019 at 5:10 AM, farcanell said:

He got elected, promising he would show his tax returns..... slightly different dynamic there.... and not “on” the voter, at all

 

whats “on” the voter, moving forward, is believing any other claims or promises, made by the liar in chief.

 

promises broken.... MAGA.... lie by lie.

He was the only one who has some sort of huge problem showing them. He made an excuse and the voters fell for it. 100% on them if you ask me, just like it will be if they fall for that again. "Good politics" is about lying: no new taxes, etc. The voters want lies. you think they would vote for a truth teller.... "many new taxes coming". 

 

Again, they fell for the tax return lie, it is on them, just like it is for any of the lies they fall for. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by direction BANGKOK

[stevenl]

3 minutes ago, Ahab said:

As normal your information is completely inaccurate, and my post was accurate. For one thing the regulations regarding IRS information have changed in major ways since 1924. Personal Identifying Information (PII) and Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) as well as modern computers and data bases were not around in 1924. A quick check of the IRS website clearly shows that tax returns and tax return information is considered SBU data that cannot be released without the consent of the taxpayer in question. https://www.irs.gov/irm/part10/irm_10-005-001

 

Next time try sourcing your information from somewhere more reliable than a talking head on a news channel. You might not have noticed but most of them have been completely wrong on a wide variety of topics related to Trump over the past year.

 

Someone is impervious to facts but in this particular instance it is not I.

 

Why not do some logical thinking here.

It makes perfect sense that the IRS can not just give your personal information to others, people or official instances.

But it also makes perfect sense that they are obliged to give that information to the instance overseeing them, the IRS. 

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

As normal your information is completely inaccurate, and my post was accurate. For one thing the regulations regarding IRS information have changed in major ways since 1924. Personal Identifying Information (PII) and Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) as well as modern computers and data bases were not around in 1924. A quick check of the IRS website clearly shows that tax returns and tax return information is considered SBU data that cannot be released without the consent of the taxpayer in question. https://www.irs.gov/irm/part10/irm_10-005-001

 

Next time try sourcing your information from somewhere more reliable than a talking head on a news channel. You might not have noticed but most of them have been completely wrong on a wide variety of topics related to Trump over the past year.

 

Someone is impervious to facts but in this particular instance it is not I.

 

Well, I chose Judge Napolitiano because he's a conservative voicing his opinion on Fox News. But I haven't found any reputable authority on taxes who says the 1924 law  is defunct. But if you have those sources, put up or shut up. The fact is, you've got nothing except bloviating to back you.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, Ahab said:

As normal your information is completely inaccurate, and my post was accurate. For one thing the regulations regarding IRS information have changed in major ways since 1924. Personal Identifying Information (PII) and Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU) as well as modern computers and data bases were not around in 1924. A quick check of the IRS website clearly shows that tax returns and tax return information is considered SBU data that cannot be released without the consent of the taxpayer in question. https://www.irs.gov/irm/part10/irm_10-005-001

 

Next time try sourcing your information from somewhere more reliable than a talking head on a news channel. You might not have noticed but most of them have been completely wrong on a wide variety of topics related to Trump over the past year.

 

Someone is impervious to facts but in this particular instance it is not I.

 

Here is a link to a very right wing legal scholar named Andy Grewal, quite eminent in his field. Nowhere in his article does he cite the legal grounds you allege would prevent Congress from executing its request. He does cite other considerations but not the ones you do. And his opinion is about as favorable a one as you're to find from any legal scholar. Most would disagree with him but he does make an intelligent case. 

http://yalejreg.com/nc/can-congress-get-president-trumps-tax-returns/

[bristolboy]

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

There is no such requirement for ANY under the law or Delegation.

There is no interpretation required by the Executive Branch nor by any of its officers.

The law is an order to produce upon demand. Period.

Trump and DOJ will have to prove both the law and Delegation of Authority (from Department of Treasury to IRS Commissioner) are unconstitutional.

 

And here's the scary all Americans thing if they succeed. If the law to provide the tax information to Congress is unconstitutional, so then are the penalties.

 

Under 26 U.S. Code Section 7214(a)(3), Offenses by officers and employees of the United States:

Unlawful acts of revenue officers or agents Any officer or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States—

• who with intent to defeat the application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the duties of his office or employment shall be dismissed from office or discharged from employment and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

With invalidation of the Law and Delegation of Authority, any employee of the IRS can SAFELY reveal tax return information of ANY US tax filer without consequences.

 

In fact there are legal precedent that conclude Congress must have a legitimate legislative purpose when requesting information in an investigation. You should look at that article I cited above in what is most likely a vain attempt to educate Ahab. There are constitutional considerations at play. Again, Andy Grewal is extremely conservative and most legal scholars might find his contentions to be a bit of a stretch. But they're not negligible.

 

[Ahab]

10 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Here is a link to a very right wing legal scholar named Andy Grewal, quite eminent in his field. Nowhere in his article does he cite the legal grounds you allege would prevent Congress from executing its request. He does cite other considerations but not the ones you do. And his opinion is about as favorable a one as you're to find from any legal scholar. Most would disagree with him but he does make an intelligent case. 

http://yalejreg.com/nc/can-congress-get-president-trumps-tax-returns/

Once again you quote a source but not the applicable regulations or law. Even the best lawyers (i.e. SCOTUS) often have split decisions, which means that just less than half of them were wrong. IRS disclosure rules are listed here https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-governments/disclosure-laws

 

From the IRS website:

You are probably aware that the law protects your tax return information from disclosure to other parties by the Internal Revenue Service.  IRC Section 6103 generally prohibits the release of tax information by an IRS employee. However, there are important exceptions that you should be aware of.

IRC 6103(d) provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration. The state agency must request this information in writing, and the request must be signed by an official designated to request tax information.

IRC 6103(i)(1) provides that, pursuant to court order, return information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws.

IRC 6103(k)(6) allows the IRS to make limited disclosures of return information in the course of official tax administration investigations to third parties if necessary to obtain information that is not otherwise reasonably available.

IRC 6103(l)(1) provides that return information related to taxes imposed under chapters 2, 21, and 24 may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration (SSA) as needed to carry out its responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Chapter 2 relates to self-employment income and does not normally concern employers. Chapter 21 concerns social security and Medicare (FICA) tax, and chapter 24 deals with income tax withholding.

The IRS may therefore share information with SSA about social security and Medicare tax liability if necessary to establish the taxpayer’s liability. This provision does not allow the IRS to disclose your tax information to SSA for any other reason.  SSA employees who receive this information are bound by the same confidentiality rules as IRS employees. Therefore, they generally cannot disclose the information to a state social security administrator (SSSA), state officials or other Federal agencies.

IRC 6103(e)(6) and (c) provide for disclosures to powers of attorney and other designees.  If you are notified of an audit by the IRS, you may want to have someone other than the authorized officer of your entity represent you or participate in the meeting.   You may bring any individual you wish into the discussion, in person or by telephone. You may give oral consent to speak with a third party if necessary to resolve a Federal tax matter. However, oral consent does not substitute for a power of attorney or a legal designation, and the discussion is limited to the issue for which the consent is given.   To officially establish a legal representative, you must provide consent using one of the following forms:

 

 

[bristolboy]

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

Once again you quote a source but not the applicable regulations or law. Even the best lawyers (i.e. SCOTUS) often have split decisions, which means that just less than half of them were wrong. IRS disclosure rules are listed here https://www.irs.gov/government-entities/federal-state-local-governments/disclosure-laws

 

From the IRS website:

You are probably aware that the law protects your tax return information from disclosure to other parties by the Internal Revenue Service.  IRC Section 6103 generally prohibits the release of tax information by an IRS employee. However, there are important exceptions that you should be aware of.

IRC 6103(d) provides that return information may be shared with state agencies responsible for tax administration. The state agency must request this information in writing, and the request must be signed by an official designated to request tax information.

IRC 6103(i)(1) provides that, pursuant to court order, return information may be shared with law enforcement agencies for investigation and prosecution of non-tax criminal laws.

IRC 6103(k)(6) allows the IRS to make limited disclosures of return information in the course of official tax administration investigations to third parties if necessary to obtain information that is not otherwise reasonably available.

IRC 6103(l)(1) provides that return information related to taxes imposed under chapters 2, 21, and 24 may be disclosed to the Social Security Administration (SSA) as needed to carry out its responsibilities under the Social Security Act. Chapter 2 relates to self-employment income and does not normally concern employers. Chapter 21 concerns social security and Medicare (FICA) tax, and chapter 24 deals with income tax withholding.

The IRS may therefore share information with SSA about social security and Medicare tax liability if necessary to establish the taxpayer’s liability. This provision does not allow the IRS to disclose your tax information to SSA for any other reason.  SSA employees who receive this information are bound by the same confidentiality rules as IRS employees. Therefore, they generally cannot disclose the information to a state social security administrator (SSSA), state officials or other Federal agencies.

IRC 6103(e)(6) and (c) provide for disclosures to powers of attorney and other designees.  If you are notified of an audit by the IRS, you may want to have someone other than the authorized officer of your entity represent you or participate in the meeting.   You may bring any individual you wish into the discussion, in person or by telephone. You may give oral consent to speak with a third party if necessary to resolve a Federal tax matter. However, oral consent does not substitute for a power of attorney or a legal designation, and the discussion is limited to the issue for which the consent is given.   To officially establish a legal representative, you must provide consent using one of the following forms:

 

 

If your evidence was actually relevant, why have no legal scholars. including conservative legal scholars, cited it? Who should we trust? Smart people who have devoted their lives to studying tax law and the Constitution, or an anonymous poster on thaivisa.com? Can you really be so conceited as to value your opinion over theirs? Do you think you've made some sort of brilliant discovery that somehow eluded their detection?

[JustAnotherHun]

On 4/11/2019 at 7:30 PM, farcanell said:

... elected by people who don’t care about the truth, honesty or integrity of their leader and their country

 

Maybe they did not vote for truth, honesty and integrity because there was no such candidate available. Compared to cheating Hillary even the Donald is a man oh honor.

[Ahab]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

If your evidence was actually relevant, why have no legal scholars. including conservative legal scholars, cited it? Who should we trust? Smart people who have devoted their lives to studying tax law and the Constitution, or an anonymous poster on thaivisa.com? Can you really be so conceited as to value your opinion over theirs? Do you think you've made some sort of brilliant discovery that somehow eluded their detection?

I would once again suggest that you (and the scholars and experts) read the regulations that are very clearly and precisely spelled out for all to see on the IRS website. If reading the rules and regulations of privacy at the IRS makes me "brilliant" then so be it, but it really isn't all that difficult to do.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Ahab said:

I would once again suggest that you (and the scholars and experts) read the regulations that are very clearly and precisely spelled out for all to see on the IRS website. If reading the rules and regulations of privacy at the IRS makes me "brilliant" then so be it, but it really isn't all that difficult to do.

First off, there is nothing in the text you cited that states this list of items is exhaustive. And who are you to decide what law is applicable and what is not? Can you give me one reason why conservative legal experts wouldn't cite those passages if they believed it made a compelling case? Information that is available to a non-scholar like yourself has escaped their notice? People who devote their lives to studying these questions? I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be at best, so naive, or at worst, so conceited.

In 1924 Congress passed a law authorizing itself to request this information from the IRS. Until such a time as Congress passes another law revoking this power, it is the law of the land. No such law has been passed.

Enough already with your homemade legal opinions. Rational people will go with the experts. Especially when there is not one - not one - who supports  your position.

[lannarebirth]

This is an opinion with which I concur.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-12/trump-s-taxes-the-courts-must-decide-about-president-s-returns

[farcanell]

1 hour ago, JustAnotherHun said:

Maybe they did not vote for truth, honesty and integrity because there was no such candidate available. Compared to cheating Hillary even the Donald is a man oh honor.

McCain?

[MeePeeMai]

Whether American's like Trump or not, just remember that we only had two choices.  Trump .... or Hillary.

 

It was an easy decision for me.  I'd rather have dropped dead than see evil Hillary become the President so no matter what Trump does or doesn't do, I always remember what our options were in that election and I keep that stiff perspective in the back of my mind.