I’m pretty sure everyone was warned well in advance that if voters gave control of the House back to the Democrats, the “agenda” for the next two years was going to have more to do with trying to cause trouble for Donald Trump than developing any new policies to help the nation. Those predictions are already coming true, barely two months into Nancy Pelosi’s speakership. The latest salvo is coming from the Ways and Means Committee, where Massachusetts Democratic Chairman Richard Neal is preparing to issue demands for years worth of President Trump’s personal tax returns. What do they need them for? The word salad explaining the answer to that question is a wonder to behold. (NBC News)
The top tax-writing committee in the House is readying a request for years of President Donald Trump’s personal tax returns that is expected to land at the Internal Revenue Service as early as the next few weeks, NBC News has learned. And Democrats are prepared to “take all necessary steps,” including litigation, in order to obtain them.
Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, D-Mass., has asked the committee’s attorneys to prepare the request, according to two aides involved in the process. Neal has also contacted the chairs of several other House investigative committees, including Oversight and Government Reform, Financial Services, Intelligence and Judiciary, asking them to provide detailed arguments for why they need the president’s tax returns to conduct their probes.
“Every day the American people and Congress learn more about President Trump’s improprieties, from conflicts of interest to influence peddling, potential tax evasion and violations of the Constitution — all roads leading back to President Trump’s finances,” said Ashley Etienne, spokeswoman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The fact that the initial announcement is coming from a spokesperson out of Pelosi’s office is telling. That means that this plan was being hatched, or at least fully endorsed, in the Speaker’s office. They’re assembling the biggest wave of pressure that can be managed in the effort, too. Before moving forward, Neal is asking for justifications from the leading Democrats in multiple committees as to why they should be able to do this.
It’s true that the Ways and Means Committee has the legal authority to request the private tax returns of any citizen, and in theory, they could initiate legal action in an attempt to force the issue. (That’s why Neal was stuck with the job.) But such requests have to be made as part of an investigation into a crime where the tax returns would provide relevant information. And the government is held to strict accountability in terms of when a private citizen’s tax returns can even be looked at, say nothing of making them public. If you don’t think that those returns will be showing up in the New York Times on the same day the Democrats get hold of them, I’ve got some prime Florida swampland to sell you.
A request such as this would generally be expected to begin with law enforcement investigating a crime. What crime do the Democrats claim has taken place where the President’s personal tax returns might be relevant? The only thing we’re hearing so far, aside from vague charges of “improprieties” is a claim of “potential tax evasion.” Really?
Showing off one’s tax records WAS a tradition, not a requirement.
If, and when it is made a requirement….
Well, it won’t be.
Tax forms include private and protected information (SS#’s, etc.) on OTHER people who did business with filers of tax forms.
This fishing expedition shows the desperation of Dems (who wouldn’t want it made mandatory) because there was No Russian Collusion.
…because there is reason to believe the tax returns are evidence of crimes.
It will all be about the money, because that’s what Trump is all about.
Like… what?
To use the Democrat argument, this was CIVILIAN Trump and he’s not a civilian any more. That was a long time ago, so GET OVER IT.
I think they’ll start showing up as soon as the request is made to the IRS, there being enough liberal deep-state scum there to leak them (since NO ONE was ever punished for Obama’s weaponization of the IRS).
The people who’s job it is to LOOK for tax evasion has already been over them and found nothing. NEXT?
What is also sought are Trump’s business associates so they can be harassed, threatened and intimidated… punished for having dealings with Trump. This is “Operation Choke Point” applied to a US citizen.
Bank fraud.
@Greg:
Again… based on WHAT?
I have an idea; let’s just investigate EVERYONE for bank fraud since no actual evidence of bank fraud is required to initiate an investigation. However, we should investigate Pelois for channeling government contracts to her husband, Waters for giving contracts to her relatives, Jackson-Lee for nepotism, etc, etc, etc.
Like the collusion “investigation”, you are opening a can of worms you are going to wish you had never seen. And, like I said, IF there was any bank fraud, it was a long time ago so it doesn’t matter.
@Deplorable Me: The normal course of events would be a Bank would contact law enforcement and report suspicious activity, it isnt detected by tax returns.
They have had this hard on for Trumps returns since before the election. The law is pretty clear about the privacy of tax returns. I think Trump should continue his laughing at them.
Bank fraud in returns lolololol the sh!t the libs are fed by their preachers.
Investigations are opened based on observed patterns that arouse reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. They are conducted to determine if compelling evidence of the suspected crime activity actually exists.
Do you believe only crimes already proven to have taken place are investigated? That’s what you’re suggesting.
@Greg:
Oh, really? Apparently, not in THIS case. Here we are opening “investigations” based on what you WISH you could find. Don’t find it? Open another one looking for something else.
That’s why we aren’t seeing prosecution for Russian collusion… it was just a hunch that investigating could serve a political purpose. Though the investigation only proved DEMOCRATS colluded with Russians, still Trump is pursued. There’s no proof or reasonable suspicion involved.
“Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” ~Samuel Johnson~
Trump fires up CPAC with expletive-laden description of Mueller probe: ‘They’re trying to take you out with bulls—‘
@Deplorable Me: Greg hasnt a clue he simply hangs his hat on the moronic rantings of the MSM and their pseudo experts. He faithfully keeps us informed of the days “explosive” diarrhea on the Cable church channels.
Maybe Wretched will come up with another exclusive Trump tax page, to find out it was a page of instructions from the IRS how to fill out the EZ form, From 2006.
I love how she waved the 1 page for 30 minutes bellowing like a calf.
@kitt: We should be investigating this:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/nyc-mayor-de-blasios-wife-spent-900-billion-in-taxpayer-money-with-no-record-of-how-it-was-used?utm_content=buffer90041&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=theblaze&fbclid=IwAR0aMEGCWW8AbdQ64m4NY9sL4j0D-8RyHI6YmnWQVJ0ZEhs5KzxtFVE8LDE
We should also be investigating El Chapo’s claim he made payments to Pelosi and Hillary to keep the border open. He’s as credible as Cohen or the Democrats.
Let’s investigate the accusations of Obama’s gay lovers, too. Hell, let’s investigate EVERYTHING we hear about!
@Deplorable Me: So worried about teeny-tiny accounting oversights geeze.
Nixon made his tax returns public because he KNEW that he’d done nothing wrong in them, and he thought (correctly) that demonstrating that to the voters would convince them that he was not a crook (something that Nixon was perhaps overly concerned about for reasons not fully known).
Subsequent presidential candidates did the same thing, seeing that there was a compelling reason to do so: the public’s interest in transparency.
Trump’s reluctance to make HIS returns public begs the question of “Why?” An on-going audit has no bearing on public release – he has copies. Any sensitive personal information, like his Social Security number, can easily be redacted. And as long as he demurs, the Dems will us it as ammunition against him. The only LOGICAL explanation is that Trump’s returns reveal something that the public would find seriously objectionable, and that Trump knows that he would be MORE damaged from their release than from withholding them.
I have a hunch that Trump’s returns WOULD be poisonous to his political account, and so I agree with his decision not to release them.
I have to give credit where credit is due. Trump is a smarter crook than I thought.
@George Wells: Had Democrats been more curious about Hillary’s missing 33,000 emails, I might believe they had a justified interest in Trump’s tax returns more than simply finding SOMETHING to attack. After all, Bill and Hillary’s return showed they took a $1 million deduction for a “charitable” contribution… TO THEMSELVES and Democrats didn’t really care. So, what are you looking for in Trump’s returns. RETURNS which, by the way, that have been audited each and every year?
Why? Because all the left wants is to dig and dig and dig until they can find SOMETHING that looks suspicious and, no doubt as with EVERY IRS return, there is SOMETHING. And, again, when liberals show the same interest in the most intimate and personal details of THEIR candidates, I might feel their interests are justified. But, they aren’t.
Nah… it’s a fishing expedition. No need for it.
@George Wells:
Better question is why a law abiding citizen any citizen be compelled or forced to be made public any private information, protected by US laws.
When will it be enough?
6 committees looking for a scrap they can turn into a book to impeach.
How far should oversight go, it certainly has never ever gone to this level of insanity ever before.
Congress has proven they cannot walk and chew bubblegum, no budget or immigration reform.
@Deplorable Me:
Actually, democrats vying for their party’s nomination often attack each other for any delay or incompleteness in their opponents’ making their returns public. For this reason, Democratic contenders’ returns come out during the primaries, well BEFORE they go toe-to-toe with their Republican opponent. And for the record, Hillary was slower and cagier than others, which suggested that she has something to distract attention from or clean up. No surprise. The Clintons played fast and loose with loopholes, which Trump apparently enjoyed as well. His refusal to make his returns public isn’t from an overabundance of concern for his personal privacy, it is out of fear for his political life.
@kitt:
They aren’t so compelled by law. I didn’t ever say that they were.
But a 40+ year tradition STARTED by a Republican candidate for president leaves a skeptical public wondering “Why Not?” and that CAN be compelling if you want their votes. Quid Pro Quo.
@George Wells:
True, Hillary brought up the birth certificate issue with Obama. So, why didn’t Democrats DEMAND to know the truth about Obama’s birth certificate? Why wasn’t his reluctance to provide anything but a “proof of live birth” suspicious? Why wasn’t Obama’s efforts to keep his scholastic records SECRET not suspicious enough to DEMAND he make them available?
The answer is quite simple. They don’t care and they are afraid of what they might find.
Yet, when it concerns TRUMP, they think it is intuitive that ALL personal data be made public. We’ve seen two returns and, of course, nothing but boring compliance.
OMG! He declared business losses! He’s a criminal! Yet, Democrats take deductions, too and it is of no concern.
OMG! He made money (and paid taxes on it)! Yet, lots of Democrats make a LOT of money and pay LESS taxes on their income… no concerns.
Trump is a BUSINESSMAN and financial records are MEANT to be kept secret. He has COMPETITION.
No, Trump has no obligation and, until liberals show the same interest in the reporting on their own, I don’t think he should release a damned thing.
@George Wells: Wondering, why, is it your business? So if its such a thing with you and not performance in office dont vote for him, simple huh. He didnt follow a tradition. Income tax is legalized theft, I would love to see it abolished and removed from the constitutions list of amendments, added well after the founding, permanently. There are things that should never be taxed, food, heating fuels, electricity, those are taxes on the poor for things they require to survive, just an opinion.
@kitt: Another tradition he didn’t follow was to take big money from big money donors so that he would be beholden to them.
@Deplorable Me: There are plenty of traditions he ignores, he actually is concerned about our country.
@kitt:
Because it speaks to his character and credibility, and that, if he is to be OUR president, is ALL of our “business.”
Just as Cohen’s having lied to Congress casts concern that EVERYTHING he says is a lie, if Trump has broken the tax laws, who is to say that he HASN’T broken other laws, and who is to say that he won’t CONTINUE to break them? People did not stop doubting Cohen’s testimony once he admitted having lied. He is forever tainted. If Trump’s returns come out and prove mischief, he will be tainted too.
@George Wells:
Well, since he is audited every year, I suppose we can rest easy. Right?
By your remarks, I take it you view Obama (and by extension, Michelle) and Hillary (and by extension, Bill and Chelsea) with utmost suspicion.
@George Wells: How much private information of the president is your business? How far back? 1 year, 5, 10 since birth, do you need to know his toilet training schedule? The media seems overly curious with his sex life 10 15 years ago.
Why hasnt Obama ever had to account for what when on during his administration, but this President has to answer for how many nappys he went through as a toddler? (yes I am exaggerating but if they thought it would get him impeached dont doubt for a second they would be investigating)
Just dont vote for him its his private business. The IRS are the experts and they have not found any irregularities, members of congress are not tax experts. Would you want AOC to do your returns?
If Trump’s tax returns are examined and no financial fraud or potentially dangerous conflicts between personal and national interests are found, he can stand at his presidential podium and tell the world I told you so. His critics would look like idiots, his reelection would likely be a shoo-in, and republicans would likely be in a position to regain majority control of the House of Representatives.
So what’s his problem with that? What’s your problem with that?
You loose your claim to financial privacy when you’re elected to a position that gives you vast powers that could be subject to abuse for personal gain. Having blind faith in the honesty of any person placed in such a position is the height of stupidity.
@Greg: His critics already look like idiots. Just like the idiots they are.
We should also investigate California’s defrauding of $3 billion taxpayer dollars for the railroad they apparently never intended to build. Who wet their beak there? Brown? Waters? Harris? Newsome? Boxer? Feinstein? We better investigate, just to be sure… because fraud is possible.
No, sir, his defenders look a bit like idiots, because they refuse to examine what it is they’re defending, despite many worrisome indications of impropriety.
@Greg: Nope. The critics. Whiny, sore loser, crybaby idiots. They look at their field of socialist, American-hating, ignorant Presidential candidates and they say, “We have GOT to impeach this guy! We have no hope of defeating him with THESE morons!”
@Greg: Were you concerned with electing a president that has ties to domestic terrorists? One that was smoking dope while another was building? So proud of his past he had every possible record sealed?
A crime in order to be investigated needs that pesky paragraph 1 the reason. not wild speculation or fake accusations.
I have a paragraph 1 for you
Mr Obama knowingly and willfully communicated with his secretary of state through unsecured servers and other devices. For years allowing top secret information open to the monitoring by every enemy nation state on the planet.
Further he did not call for the proper security to be put in place to seal the open breach of this top secret information.
He was grossly negligent and did not insure all government documents and communications be transferred to government systems for preservation.
@kitt: It’s called, “grasping at straws”.
@kitt, #29:
Not especially, because I thought there to be no real cause for concern. Knowing someone doesn’t mean you endorse what they have done or advocated; having smoked “dope” is no predictor of a person’s character or of what they will achieve in life, any more than having taken a drink.
@kitt:
And you know this how????
Per your questions: Anyone who wants my vote for president needs to have no secrets from me that I know of. When you go for a security clearance, they want to know about your financial LIFE, your sex life, and anything else that even remotely speaks to your character, because they want to establish with certainty that you are not so financially irresponsible that you just might be BOUGHT for the price of your debts, and because they want to make sure that you wont be blackmailed or otherwise compromised by skeletons in your closet that they didn’t catch.
I had a top secret clearance when I was in the Navy – the investigators asked people EVERYTHING, and they went all the way back. (This I was told by neighbors, my bank, my girlfriend (yes), my old school teachers and my dormmates in college, and it was always the same, so I have no reason to doubt what they reported.) And I was only going to be working on cryptographic equipment. Anyone vying for the presidency is a whole lot more important than I was, and his “private” details are correspondingly more important than mine were. The government was my employer, and the government deserved the information it sought. The voters are the president’s employer, and they deserve the same complete information. EVERYTHING.
Democrats need something to bury the fact of their failure to conjure up “collusion”.
https://www.governorpalin.org/2019/03/03/democrat-slams-breaks-mueller-report-expectations-will-almost-certainly-disappoint/?fbclid=IwAR3FomonhMCafw6H3xirh9D3YJGby-TIoA9Vx4Ou3HmHGLKOaRHXo01u-Mw
Question: why would Democrats be “disappointed” to find Trump was innocent of collusion? Wouldn’t every American be grateful to know he was innocent? Yeah… every AMERICAN.
@George Wells: See how easy, just dont vote for him. I dont care who you vote for or why.
No one forced to to give up your information no one, you willingly did that for personal gain. That was your choice and you had freedom of choice.
Do you think if one of the peope you associated with was a domestic terrorist you would have got that clearance?
@kitt:
It’s a discussion board, not a surrender board.
@kitt:
The Navy assigned me to the electronics technician rating I received after I took the training I was given. I was not ASKED if I wanted a security clearance. It was ordered because I happened to have received the training that was needed to qualify for a job that in turn needed the clearance. I WAS SURPRISED WHEN I WAS INFORMED THE INVESTIGATION WAS UNDER WAY. (Proving this would be the fact that I was gay in the service at a time when gay people were routinely drummed OUT of the service, and I would NEVER have wanted my sexuality to be questioned. Fortunately for me, I never ACTED on my sexuality until I was 25, the clearance investigation was completed by the time I was 20, and before then I HAD a girlfriend on paper.) But you are wrong about a choice. I wasn’t given one.
Congress does not require evidence of a crime to look at Trump’s tax returns. It’s called Congressional oversight. There’s plenty of reason to check to see that all is in order, and it isn’t a question of whether he’s paid all required taxes—which is the only thing the IRS would ever have had the power to do. The IRS will never have considered the possibility of conflicts between public and private interests, or the possibility that a taxpayer has been financially compromised by a foreign power.
May 7, 2019 — NYT: Tax papers suggest Trump had $1 billion in business losses over a decade
I’m afraid it does. They will have to define what they are overseeing in order to invade Trump’s… or anyone else’s… Constitutionally protected right to privacy.
Odd, even when those tax transcripts (not actual returns) were illegally leaked, I would think the Democrats would have foregone the impulse to expose them… you know, like they said anyone that got ahold of Hillary’s and the DNC’s emails should not use them. Something different?
So… where are the crimes?
@Deplorable Me, #38:
No, it does not, and your endless repetition does not make it so.
Congressional oversight is not limited only to reacting. Oversight also involves monitoring for such behavior. The checks and balances system would be completely ineffective if Congress were only allowed to closely examine a situation after the fact of a wrongdoing had already been clearly established. This is why they have the legal power to obtain evidence.
Judging from the republican responses on the floor of the House this morning, it appears they would be willing to break the Constitution to afford Trump cover.
@Greg: #37
This is why we trust gas station sushi more than the MSM
@Greg:
Uh… NO. As attracted as you have become to the police state, that’s not how it works, even when you are a crybaby that doesn’t like how elections (or investigations) turn out. People are not investigated, their privacy violated, just to make sure they are honest; you need evidence of a crime to invade someone’s privacy. I know you don’t like it, that you bristle at the mere thought that laws, rules and the Constitution protect people you want to destroy, but that is just the way it is.
So, you would be just fine with law enforcement coming into your home and going through your personal records just to make sure you aren’t up to something nefarious. Good for you. I’m not and I expect everyone to be treated according to the same rules, not switched on or off depending on the party affiliation. And that’s NOT the way justice in America is designed. So, without a demonstration of some need other than curiosity, you WON’T be getting Trump’s taxes; well, those some scumbag doesn’t steal and turn over to the NYT, anyway.
The most loved Vice President since Agnew? Was this article published on April Fools Day, or did the writer just have a weird sense of humor?
That is, in fact, how it works. One of the functions of Congressional oversight is keeping them honest. It’s all about checks and balances. From the Congressional Research Service:
Congressional Oversight
Were Citizenship and American Government classes cut out of the local cirriculum at some point?
@Greg: No. It isn’t. You should probably read the document. Nowhere does “oversight” overrule the right to privacy in the absence of evidence of a crime; this applies to policies, procedures and results, not criminal investigations. Trump’s personal taxes are not a part of the operation of the government.
@Deplorable Me, #44:
I hope you’ll keep the vast importance you place on an individual’s right to privacy in mind the next time you’re tempted to start going on about Hillary Clinton’s deletion of personal emails, or the state’s right to know what’s going on between a pregnant woman and her doctor.
@Greg: You certainly have overlooked, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do you see which basic right is listed first?
The woman got liberty for her pursuit of happiness, so she shouldnt deny the right to life of the baby that she freely created. She isnt saddled with the kid she can give it away there are waiting lists.
Then she can go to her doctor and see the hundreds of options to prevent future unwanted pregnancies and go back to more pursuit of happiness.
See how easy that was?
Congress passed the privacy law for both the taxpayer and the grand jury testimony, now they find them bothersome…tough.
@Greg:
How do we know they were “personal”? They were under subpoena and she destroyed them; they were NOT personal, as they were, by her own decision, intermingled with THE PEOPLE’S emails. She destroyed them before it could be determined if they were personal; so, as is your usual habit… WRONG.
And here we talk about the taking of a life. NOT a personal right or privacy issue, as the law concerning murder clearly states.
So it would seem that your argument that the left gets to randomly revoke the right to privacy individuals possess when it serves their political agenda has hit rock bottom.
Donald Trump Jr has just been subpoenaed by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
May 8, 2019 — Scoop: Senate Intel subpoenas Trump Jr. over Russia matters
I wonder if Trump’s instruction to ignore all Congressional subpoenas also applies to republican-led committees?
The House Intelligence Committee has also issued a subpoena this evening, to the DOJ, for “all counterintelligence and foreign intelligence materials in the probe, the full report, and underlying evidence,” within the Mueller report.
@Deplorable Me:
Ah. Now it sounds like you’re fishing for a crime.
@kitt:
As I’m sure you’re aware, those do not appear in the Constitution.