By Neil Eggleston and Joshua A. Geltzer
The Treasury Department, with its Monday announcement that it would not comply with a demand from House Democrats to release President Trump’s tax returns to Congress, has set up a battle that will now go to the courts to be settled.
But the American people deserve that day to come quickly, given the obvious stakes for Mr. Trump’s re-election bid in 2020. For a court to be conscious of timing isn’t a political act — it’s simply responsible. We had firsthand experience at the White House dealing with the 2016 election’s most politically explosive litigation: the review and release of Hillary Clinton’s emails. A federal judge, conscious of the election implications, moved that litigation at breakneck speed. The same urgency should apply in Mr. Trump’s case.
If Congress and ultimately the American people are to see Mr. Trump’s financial records, they should see them as soon as possible, as American voters are already considering whether they want to give the president four more years. Moving forward the litigation so that it’s resolved, one way or the other, soon or certainly well ahead of Election Day is a matter of judicial responsibility.
That’s exactly how a federal judge handled the litigation surrounding Mrs. Clinton’s emails in the 2016 campaign. When it emerged that she had used a private email address and server to conduct official business as secretary of state, it became clear that documents previously provided to the public in response to requests for State Department records hadn’t included the privately held emails. Consequently, some people who had made those previous requests went to court demanding that the privately held emails be released — quickly.
So I am curious how anyone (much less two separate people) can write an article that is thirteen paragraphs long and not address probably the most significant point regarding any comparisons between Clinton's email server information and Trump's tax returns and financial statements.
The former was a matter of Government business. Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State. The emails she wrote while Secretary of State were a matter of government record. The fact that she attempted to hide them on a private server does not shield that Government information from Government oversight.
Trump's financial statements and tax returns are a matter of personal business, especially considering the requests involve information from prior to Trump even being President. Congressional oversight of the President is just that. Oversight of the President. It does not include oversight of Donald Trump's personal and business life prior to him being President.
Mnuchin denied the House's attempts to turn over the President's tax returns citing a lack of legislative purpose for requesting them. While a law certainly exists (little used law from 1926) that allows the weighs and means committee to request tax returns, it's not the Congressional free for all suggested. The law was written in response to allegations of IRS abuse including possible IRS employees accepting bribes (to look the other way) from very wealthy people fudging their tax returns.
In debating the law, the congress had to decide how to weigh personal privacy against Congressional need to oversee the IRS. The decision was ultimately made to allow Congress to request tax returns, secure tax returns for investigative or legislative purposes, but not actually release the tax returns to the public (and in some cases not release to the full Congress).
Since the law was enacted, court precedent has determined that Congress (if not investigating the IRS) needs a legislative purpose to exercise the rights to request tax returns. In other words, the legal authority is not absolute, and the authority does not include specifically targeting individual Americans without a legitimate legislative purpose.
Certainly providing absolute authority to congress to request anyone's returns would allow for abuse of power. The basic premise that tempers that would quite obviously be seen as a just, worthy, logical, and sensible manner in which to view this by everyone... if not for the blind hatred of Donald Trump and an overwhelming need to bring him down by any means possible.
In this case, Democrats make no pretense about their intentions. They somehow believe that they have the right to Trump's tax returns for purely political reasons, and that they have the right to put them out to the public for political reasons "prior" to 2020. That is as obvious as the nose on Robert Mueller's face.
If Democrats truly believe that there is reason to believe that Donald Trump has committed financial crimes then they could always put in for a criminal referral. They could certain request that the IRS audit his returns and the FEC monitor his financial dealings. But with any citizen of our country, we all have the right to due process, and fourth amendment protection from any unwarranted investigations.
At the end of the day, our constitutional rights as Americans take precedent over obscure 93 year old laws that were not written for or meant to be used as today's Democrats are intending to use it.
59 comments:
not address probably the most significant point regarding any comparisons between Clinton's email server information and Trump's tax returns and financial statements.
Easy jag off.....because there is no comparison between the fraud of trump for years and Hillary being stupid.....LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!
you can tell this was written by a couple of 0linsky holdovers. they make no attempt to educate the reader on the legislative/congressional oversight value of trump's taxes, and only demand that they be released in enough time to influence the 2020 presidential election.
man, if that's not blatant, in-your-face political hackery, i don't know what it.
exhibit A:
It’s important to understand what Mr. Trump’s suit is about. After the Treasury Department ignored a deadline for providing the House House Ways and Means Committee with the president’s tax returns as a federal law appears to require, the House Oversight and Reform Committee issued a subpoena to Mr. Trump’s accounting firm seeking his financial records.
as a federal law appears to require???
the law is plain even to a non-lawyer. and it either requires the release of the returns of it does not. if anything, trump's suit to block the release is bolstered, not harmed, by this interpretation.
and now let us proceed to the alky re-posting this story several times, in bold, italics, and any other combination of idiocy he believes bolsters his stolen opinion.
you can tell this was written by a couple of 0linsky holdovers. they make no attempt to educate the reader on the legislative/congressional oversight value of trump's taxes
Which proves what asshole.....That trump is a fraud??? He lost billions of $'s and paid no taxes because of depreciation loopholes??? Which should be closed and the only way to determine that is to inspect the king of tax avoidance.....Oh well, my opinion has no bearing on your bias or will you come out of your coma and stop swallowing....lOLOLOLOL
You can always depend on Dennis to provide the most stupid, inane comments.
CH is correct. Clinton e-mails as SOS is public business and the public or it's representatives in Congress have every right to see it.
Trump's tax returns are personal and no one has a right to see them without his consent. Even if it was shown to be a "legislative need" to see them and the House Democrats are nowhere near to showing that need.
Trump will prevail in court.
Which proves what asshole.
The same thing it proves whenever you question the legitimacy of an argument based on the fact you don't like the source.
It proves that everyone sees things through their own partisan manner. The more partisan someone is, the more partisan their opinions will be.
The fact that both of these people are former Obama White House employees means that they are, in fact, going to be quite partisan.
That being said, Rat actually explains why they are wrong, and only make reference to their partisanship as a means to explain "how" it is that they can be so wrong and not see it.
MAGA Win
9th Circuit court sides with President Trump on border Security.
Has the Left woke?
According to Denise and Roger it is perfect legal for President Trump to order the release of every Democrat Tax Filing .
Also, Trump can station people to collect data of every kind with in every Democrat campaign. Also undercover agents too.
"depreciation loopholes?"
Denise, those are called the IRS Code.
The Democrats having held the US House and US Senate for many more years wrote the tax laws.
Denise, those are called the IRS Code.
He claims to be an accountant but he graduated from a school that has there entrance requirements on a matchbook.
Fatty what did you draw to get into FDU the clown or the squirrel?
In this case, Democrats make no pretense about their intentions.
To fulfill the Constitutional rights to monitor the Executive branch, because we have three independent branches of government.
The Justice Department informed House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler Wednesday morning that the "President has asserted executive privilege over the entirety of the subpoenaed materials" in regard to special counsel Robert Mueller's report.
So Roger...
Explain how 6 year old tax returns of a private citizen is Congress "monitoring" the executive branch?
“The American people see through Chairman Nadler’s desperate ploy to distract from the President’s historically successful agenda and our booming economy. Neither the White House nor Attorney General Barr will comply with Chairman Nadler’s unlawful and reckless demands,”
If they want to use the successful in growth as a Constitutional right to refuse to release the report, good luck with that on the Robert's supreme Court.
Roger....
Explain how 6 year old tax returns of a private citizen is Congress "monitoring" the executive branch?
Or better yet, explain how Democrats will explain to the Robert's court that this serves a legitimate legislative purpose?
Scott Brick Wall syndrome, his financial history may have influenced his decisions as President. We should have the right to see his financial arrangements and determine if they were in his self interest, and not for the interests country.
If he made political decisions based upon his own personal interests, we could have the right to determine if he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
Why are you putting the best interest of the person, over the best interests of the United States or America?
The founding fathers feared the executive branch would become in effect, a dictatorship.
Whether left or right.
Okay Roger...
So what you are saying... is that Congress should be allowed to take any American's private tax returns (against the laws of IRS Privacy) and go on a fishing exhibition?
Why even have IRS privacy laws that protect tax returns if they can just be requested and released without any due process?
The argument you are making applies to everyone in every stage of the government. It would apply to every Congressperson, every Judge, Every member of the executive branch.
Does the IRS laws regarding privacy have an exemption for Public servants?
Roger is pretty comfortable with a dictatorship as long as it is his team doing the dictating.
Congress as a right and a duty of government oversight.
It does not have a right to abuse the privilege by going on a fishing expedition into private, personal business of anyone.
And it doesn't have the right to compel the government to break the law.
Roger (and the Democrats) want to keep forgetting that the 1926 law they are using does not actually allow anyone's tax returns from being released. By the statute itself, Democrats would be in violation of that very law if they attempted to release Trump's tax returns without his position.
This convenience piece of cognitive dissonance, demanding the law exists that allows them to request Tax Returns, but ignoring the portion of that same exact law that requires them to keep those returns secret... is pure modern day liberal political group think.
Roger doesn't want to address the "law" in this case, because both the specific law they are attempting to use, along with IRS privacy laws both run afoul to their plans.
Therefor, as the old saying goes...
They pound the table!
By pounding the table, I mean they ignore the underlying tangible legal problems they have... and just Scream and holler about how bad the President is and how the constitution demands oversight.
You will know they are pounding the table
(aka as not having a legal leg to stand on)
When they start using terms like "dictator" and "Tyrant" or other silly childish name calling to bolster their lack of argument argument.
The court could very well rule against the Democrat house because of Nadler's stated intention to break the law.
President Trump has invoked executive privilege over the unredacted Mueller report and underlying evidence, which he claimed exonerated him. So what does he have to hide?? The President needs to show the American people there is honesty in government and let the process move forward. I support my colleagues on the House Judiciary Committee in voting to hold AG Barr in contempt. In a democracy NO ONE is above the law. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/barr-to-trump-invoke-executive-privileged-over-redacted-mueller-materials/2019/05/07/51c52600-713e-11e9-b5ca-3d72a9fa8ff1_story.html?utm_term=.dd90ce79ebcf
Senator Warren is demanding that Pres. Trump be "Impeached".
LOL, ok dear.
Wrong Roger.
"We should have the right to see his financial arrangements and determine if they were in his self interest, and not for the interests country."
Nope ya dope
What is he afraid of?
Don't try and say that he's trying to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States. His contempt of every institution is evident in his life and actions as President.
"We should have the right to see his financial arrangements and determine if they were in his self interest, and not for the interests country."
The courts may eventually make that decision.
In Watergate the Supreme Court ruled by 9-0 that his claim of executive authority on investigations by the house of Representatives.
I made this entirely before.
the 1926 law they are using does not actually allow anyone's tax returns from being released (to the public, without the permission of the President)
You always distort reality to support the President.
Roger...
If Barack Obama's former White House Counsel planned to testify about confidential privileged conversations he had with the former President against the former President's will...
I promise you that I would see that Counsel as a snake, and quite frankly I probably wouldn't believe much of what he/she had to say.
Do you understand the oath that attorneys take and do you understand why they are disbarred for sharing privileged information?
I mean really Roger? I am curious just how many laws, regulation, and rules you are willing to see broken in your pursuit of bringing down Trump.
You had your four investigations into the Russian collusion delusion and you struck out with a strike to spare. Now you are simply desperately grasping for whatever other straw is out there to keep the "investigations" alive.
Exactly how many rules, regulations, laws, oaths, and constitutional principle are you willing to toss aside in your pursuit?
How many, Roger?
Bad orange man, I know... poor guy.
Blogger Roger Amick said...
If he made political decisions based upon his own personal interests, we could have the right to determine if he committed high crimes and misdemeanors.
except that your burden of proof is completely unreasonable.
you'll have to show a direct correlation/causation where a political decision tracks directly back to an personal financial outcome.
it also requires you to get inside trump's head and to accurately determine what is in his best personal interest at a particular point in time, driven by a particular set of events or circumstances.
in other words you will have to prove to the court that you possess the ability to read his mind, and that ability is infallible, and that ability can look back into the past as well as predict the future.
your position on this, like all of the positions you've taken on trump since he was inaugurated, is completely ridiculous, poorly informed, and just fucking retarded.
the 1926 law they are using does not actually allow anyone's tax returns from being released (to the public, without the permission of the President)
And what is your point? The President is not going to give that permission, nor should he at this point. If for no other reason, than as a matter of principle.
Democrats lied their asses off in 2018. They said elect us and we will pass laws. Republican said... no if you elect them, they will spend the next two years trying to investigate Trump by any and all means that they can muster (even if it illegal). Democrats argued.. no, we just want to legislate?
Now they are wanting to investigate Trump "personally" as well as impeach the Attorney General as well as reopen the Russia collusion investigation, as well as possibly start impeachment hearings, as well as...
Meanwhile, the stench of their lie about 2018 permeates from sea to shining sea.
what democrats HAVE NOT communicated is why anyone other than rabid TDS sufferers like the alky should vote for them.
not a single house member nor democrat presidential candidate has a stated policy goal other than beat trump.
and i'm old enough to remember when the alky ejaculated all over himself when cocaine mitch stated on the record his intention to make 0linsky a one-term president. ho-lee fucking shit did the sky ever fall THAT day.
since then every notable democrat including speaker pro tem pelosi and lady cankles of the feckless cunt have stated that they will not accept trump as president if he wins reelection.
Actually rrb, yes they have. Raise taxes, voting for felons, make guns illegal, full baby abortions
Hey Roger...
It's time to prove you have no argument and pound the table with some more insight as to why you hate Trump.
So now Nadler says he's ready, willing and able to negotiate for the full report.
Go fuck yourself jerry. You started this. Now you get nothing.
Nadler has access to everything but the grand jury redactions, and has yet to go look at it. Political theater 101.
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
Worship the Bad orange man!!!!!
Eats souls and pawn of the dictator and, and, and, he's a bad orange man!
AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!
sDon't try and say that he's trying to protect and defend The Constitution of the United States
Actually, he is.
And every American should pray that he wins.
Otherwise, the right to secure your possessions and personal papers from government intrusion is gone. As well as your right to privacy.
Nadler has access to everything but the grand jury redactions, and has yet to go look at it. Political theater 101.
Courts usually have a dim view of political theater when they have to get involved.
It's most likely they will want to stay out of this pissing match.
I suppose that's why Nadler is backing off a little.
ARGH!!!
GOVERNMENT INTRUSION IS GOOD THING!!!
ANYTHING BAD ORANGE MAN DOESN'T LIKE - I LOVE!!!
AND IF YOU DON'T LIKE GOVERNMENT INTRUSION IT'S BECAUSE TRUMP EATS YOUR SOUL!!!
Scott, you can't quit lying.
I have made it clear that, I don't want the President to be above the law.
The expansion of executive power and privilege can be used against everything if it stands.
It applies to every President in the future.
Yawn.
Yawn.
Awesome goat fucking loser.....your ability to fellate trump is beyond reproach.....keep swallowing.....asshole
grand jury redactions, and has yet to go look at it
Your stupid opinion???? I haven't seen that reported by any legitimate source cramps...
It applies to every President in the future.
But it has ironically never applied to any President previously, any public figure previously, or anyone else for that matter.
We know Roger... the rules all have to change because of the "bad orange man".
To be "really clear" Roger...
What you want is for Congress to be above the law. Even you admit that the 1926 law does not allow them to release anyone's tax returns without their consent and that they are only allowed to view them in a "closed session".
If you don't want anyone "above the law"...
Then why are you advocating that Democrats break the law?
Speaker in Name Only Polosi lap dog Schumer now agrees with this President on Trade Talks with China.
Senate has subpoenaed trump junior to testify. on russia investigation.....OH BOY!!!! I thought McConnell said its over???????
Now the kids are far game.
Ok, you set the rules.
Speaker in Name Only Polosi will command the Seargent of Arms to Arrest and imprison Trump and his Administration members.
"Pelosi said, “Well, let me just say, we do have a little jail down in the basement of the Capitol. "
Stop Talking and get to doing.
Nazi Trump has Nancy and Chuck agreeing the China Trade has to change to an America First position.
The expansion of executive power and privilege can be used against everything if it stands.
all except for one thing - you cannot provide a single factual example of trump expanding executive power.
not one.
captain pen & phone on the other hand? examples are legion.
if you have to lie to make your case - and you always DO, alky - you never had a case to begin with.
and you stupid cocksuckers are so devoid of having any familiarity at all with the fucking law, that you just held the AG in contempt of congress for committing lawful acts.
there's stupid, and then there's "alky stupid" and the democrats all went "alky stupid" today.
It's not hate.
It's a genuine fear of a Constitutional crisis over the power of the President and the three equal branches of government is at risk.
It's not hate.
It's a genuine fear of a Constitutional crisis over the power of the President and the three equal branches of government is at risk.
Only people who are rrb stupid don't understand.
You have joined the stupid shit world.
Your a fucking liar.
They are requesting his tax returns. That doesn't mean that they will release them to the public. If the chairman of the committee, releases the tax returns, he would be breaking the law!
You want the President It's not hate.
You want the President to be "above the law".
Blogger Roger Amick said...
It's not hate.
It's a genuine fear of a Constitutional crisis over the power of the President and the three equal branches of government is at risk.
well then i'm just going to chalk your behavior up to mental illness alky. there's no constitutional crisis. there's no threat of one. trump has not made one move ion that direction. in fact, since he has taken office trump has been more constitutionally respectful and compliant than his predecessor by a W I D E margin.
0linsky had nothing but disdain for our constitution. hated it because it listed what our government COULD NOT DO to the people. so he clutched his purty lil 0linsky pen and his purty lil 0linsky phone and he took one shit after another directly upon the constitution.
and the rodeo clowns of the congressional black caucus cheered him like they never cheered before. the c-span archives are chock full of sheila jackson lee, and marcia fudge, and the complete cavalcade of black morns who did everything but swoon and drop trou every time ol' skeets wiped his ass with our founding document.
the fact is alky is that this president, considering all you fucking shitstains have put him through, has shown a level of restraint i did not think humanly capable.
if ever a president could be driven to committing a series of unconstitutional acts to retaliate against those who pulled a palace coup it's trump. but the guy has remained focused and has shown a level of resolve we should ALL stand in awe of.
so take your hypocrisy and psychological projections and shove them up your old, lonely, walker-pushing ass, you inebriated piece of shit.
Roger
Your problem is you cannot answer the question.
If you want "rule of law" then why do you continue to approve of the Democrats in the house breaking them?
They are demanding Bill Barr break the law.
They are already telling people they intend to use the 1926 law and then break it.
Why are you in favor of Congress wanting to do away with any and every law they run across?
Rat is 100% correct. You cannot cite a single example of Trump "expanding" Presidential power, while we can cite example over example of the House attempting to do just that.
They are subpoenaing information that is against the law for them to see.
They are looking to bypass IRS privacy laws as it pertains to individual privacy and their tax returns.
Congress, not the President is attempting to expand their powers.
Pelosi said it just this week. She believes that Congress is no longer an "equal" branch, but should be a superior branch to the executive
If the chairman of the committee, releases the tax returns, he would be breaking the law!
right.
yet the dumb fuck just held the AG in contempt for UPHOLDING THE FUCKING LAW.
so yes, the threat of fat jerry making them public is very real.
like you, he's an old, traitorous piece of shit who would do anything to harm this president.
you know what's going to be hysterical alky?
this just occurred to me...
if trump get's re-elected, it's going to take everything you can muster to keep your liver-transplanted ass alive so you don't go to your grave with trump as YOUR PRESIDENT.
that is fucking hysterical when you think about it. your hatred of him is so baseless, so unfounded, so mentally fucking ill... yet he could very well be YOUR last president.
heh.
i love it.
alky -
let's do this:
we'll call it - "the alky challenge."
it's like the pepsi challenge from long ago but with a twist.
i challenge you to produce a single verifiable example of trump either attempting to or actually expanding his executive power above and beyond what's defined within article II of our constitution.
just one.
not a high bar to clear.
a single demonstrable and verifiable factual example.
take your time. i will allow copy/pasting, but only of verifiable facts. no bozo's post op/ed's from your new dream girl jen rubin. oh, and no maggie haberman. AT ALL.she's a fucking lying cunt on stilts.
3, 2, 1...GO!
the alky challenge is ON!!!
Post a Comment