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?
Private, like what is between a woman and her physician?
In this case, at least, there is a very specific law that gives Congress a very specific oversight power, which they may exercise at will. The privacy of what Congress sees is a separate issue. The law only allows the examination of tax returns provided under this oversight law in a closed session. Though if something very serious were discovered, we would likely hear about it during impeachment proceedings. It’s unlikely that the Trump family’s famous Secret Sauce recipe would be revealed. Such an indiscretion would come back hard on the committee members who leaked it.
@Greg: Private as in not for congress and their opposition research.
@Greg:
Even YOU keep pointing out that this law was written in response to the Teapot Dome Scandal… a predicate. So, unless you have some specific need, aside from stamping your feet and insisting you spoiled brat little impulses have to be satisfied, keep stamping and whining.
No one anywhere argues he is. He is not bereft of Constitutional rights and protections, either.
@kitt:
In order to satisfy, “WAA!! WAA!! WAA!!! We lost an election and we want revenge!!! We have shitty candidates and we need to destroy Trump before the election!!!! We’re going to scream at the sky and throw doo-doo and pee-pee on people until we get our way!!! Because WE’RE special!!”
Well, if that’s the way you want it, OK. I guess someone like Trump could break any law, commit any crime… even MURDER, if he just keeps it PRIVATE between him and his doctor. Is that better for you?
@Deplorable Me, #1983:
Sorry again, but the law was created, passed by both houses of Congress, and signed into law by the President of the United States AFTER the Teapot Dome Scandal was over. The scandal raged during the final two years of the Harding administration, which ended in 1923.
The law wasn’t created until 1924, to give Congress oversight power both as a means of investigation, and as a deterrent. In the future, highly placed public officials, from the president on down, would understand that they could not conceal illegal financial dealings—otherwise known as corruption.
The Teapot Dome Scandal was a predicate only in the sense that it revealed the need for an unfettered oversight power to keep the Executive Branch honest.
I am not a national security threat nor do I have any serious conflicts of interest, because you have no proof. You cannot examine my tax returns to see if there’s proof, because I am not a national security threat nor do I have any serious conflicts of interest.
You do not see a serious problem there?
We’re talking about the Office of the President, not somebody running the local hardware store. This factor does make a difference, whether you’re willing to acknowledge it or not.
@Greg: The US government has had his tax returns for decades and decades they have been audited, and are being auditedgoo nuf.
Its another see ya in court you nosey bastids.
@Greg: Uh huh. So, what it was created for was whenever they saw evidence of a crime or scandal, they could investigate some specific charge, not just wield whenever politically convenient. How many Presidents since 1924 has this law been utilized against?
Yeah. I see a VERY serious problem. YOU and people like you. You supported a President that apologized around the world for the greatness of the United States. A man that had communist influences in his past, who began his Presidential campaign in the living room of a terrorist and worshiped at a racist church. A President that vowed to a foreign adversary that when he had no more elections to worry about, he would fully cooperate with them. A man that paid ransom to terrorists for hostages.
You also supported a woman that made all State Department emails available to all adversaries. She then destroyed a large number of them when they were subpoenaed. She took huge sums of money from foreign governments while she made government decisions favorable to them, including selling 20% of our uranium to a company KNOWN to be controlled by Russians.
You either don’t seem to care about national security threats or conflicts of interest or you have no idea what one looks like. Therefore, what you believe one to be, particularly when it only follows ideological paths, is of no particular interest to anyone, least of all me.
So, you feel Trump is a national security threat? Based on WHAT? Provide solid evidence and then go after records. You feel he has conflicts of interest? Based on WHAT? Provide solid proof of evidence, then go after records. Now, based on the not so distant past, you know what evidence ISN’T. It ISN’T a load of political shit that no one even has enough confidence in to bother to verify it. So, WHAT is the evidence?
@kitt: Apparently, the straws the left feels they have to grasp at are dwindling. They are tenaciously hanging on to this one, regardless of the absolute silly weakness of their position. I expect to seem them all crying in public any day now.
@Deplorable Me: The congress are not crime investigators, if the get the documents they wont know what to look for. If anything is leaked I expect everyone that had eyeballs on them gets a perp walk. in cuffs.
@kitt, #106:
IRS audits do not cover issues related to national security or conflicts between personal and national interests.
I don’t care if he has evaded taxes. We know he evades taxes. We know he routinely states entirely different values of the same assets, depending upon whether he’s seeking a loan or calculating his losses to reduce his taxable income. He has openly acknowledged doing so, referring to the practice as “a sport”. He wears it like a merit badge. Apparently not doing so is stupid.
@Greg:
So, you are worried about Trump violating national security…. six years ago? That seems odd to me.
Actually, you know he HASN’T. You have 10 years of illegally leaked returns and NO examples of tax evasion. Only a liar on the scale of Harry Reid can make such an accusation.
@Deplorable Me, #107:
Save it for somebody who can’t read the law and understand what they’ve just read. I understand what it says and I understand why it was written.
It’s an effing oversight power. It allows them to monitor, not just to investigate. I know this because that is how it is written.
@Greg:
So… NO OTHER Presidents have had “oversight” for no obvious reason imposed upon them? I guess that sort of indicates this is more partisan than necessary, doesn’t it? But, believe me, I am quite aware I am expecting rational understanding from a person that is totally irrational due to their severe ideological frustration.
@Greg:
You’re a liar.
Using legal tax deductions is not tax evasion.
@Greg:
And you obtained your J.D. where? And don’t give me that crap how you know how to read so you know what the law says.
@retire05, #114:
I know how to read, and read it, and consequently do know what it law says. The law in question is not complex. It is not written in obscure legalese. It is presented within a straightforward context. What’s not to understand?
Perhaps the rubes attending Trump’s stadium revival meetings have problems with it. More likely they just haven’t bothered to read it and think for themselves about what it says, relying instead on someone to tell them. The don’t actually want to know. Intellectual laziness is a common problem these days. It’s probably as common as native stupidity.
A degree is not conclusive evidence of intelligence.
@retire05, #113:
Is knowingly and purposefully misstating the value of one’s assets to reduce taxes legal? Is knowingly and purposefully misstating them to obtain loans legal? How is it that the figures differ enormously, depending upon which of the two things one is doing?
Trump is the liar, not me.
@Greg: Do you think he fills out his own taxes? He hires that work out it is their job to find every legal tax deduction.
I bet even Baron has to file long form.
@Greg:
Good luck with that if you are ever charged with a crime. Just be sure to tell the judge that you are not guilty because you “know what the law says.”
A defendant who represents themselves has a fool for a lawyer.
Still waiting for your proof of that claim.
@retire05, #118:
I take it your position then is that Americans of average intelligence or higher are too stupid to understand the law in question, and therefore shouldn’t try to read it for themselves, but should rely on Steve Mnuchin’s interpretation.
I’ll wait to see what the court says. Meantime, I’ll do my own thinking, since I’m not in court.
On a different but closely related matter; it involves a subpoena issued to Trump’s accounting firm, not the IRS:
From FOX News, May 20, 2019 — Federal judge sides with House Democrats over subpoena for Trump’s financial records
The Deutsche Bank subpoena will likely go the same way—especially now that claims about the bank ignoring internal money-laundering flags on Kushner’s transactions with Russia have just surfaced. The bank has already been hit with huge fines involving Russian money laundering. They were supposed to be more vigilant as a consequence. Apparently not.
@Greg:
If Americans of average intelligence, or higher, could argue law, we would have no need for lawyers, now would we?
Still waiting for your proof of that claim.
As to the average intelligence, or higher; that eliminates you, Greggie Gobbels.
@retire05, #121:
Proof requires an expert examination of the evidence—such as tax returns. There is certainly compelling reason to to look:
Tax Fraud By The Numbers: The Trump Timeline
@retire05:
You were just making the case to me that it doesn’t take any particular skill to read and understand the law. (Let the record reflect that your saying so was a flip-flop from your previous position that the law was so complex that Greg and I were idiots for thinking we could understand it. Your position seems to be that if you want to cite the law to make your case, the law is easily understood by one and all; on the other hand, if someone you disagree with wants to make a case by citing the law, the law suddenly becomes an impenetrable labyrinth that non-lawyers have no hope of understanding.)
@Michael:
Where? Quote me verbatim.
@Greg:
“the balance of equities and the public interest weigh heavily in favor of denying relief. The risk of irreparable harm does not outweigh these other factors.”
Amil Mehta, Judge
(Obama appointee)
This is a truly bad ruling. USSC, here we come.
@retire05:
He made the same claim about Romney and was challenged by Common Sense to produce his evidence. That was almost seven years ago and he never produced anything. Your typical loudmouth lefty. He’s the type of person that makes totalitarian regimes possible. Time is too short to waste your time with his type.
@another vet:
I remember.
They are all just parrots of the media.
You can’t let them just control the conversation.
BTW, don’t click on one of Greggie Goebbels’ links. I did a couple of years ago and got a virus that damn near destroyed my computer. Cost me a bundle to get is purged.
@retire05:
I didn’t bookmark it, mainly because it’s just more of same garbage you spew all the time. I know you said it; you know you said it.
One opportunistic flip-flop wasn’t even worth mentioning in your case. I only brought it up because you’d performed the rarely-attempted double-reverse flip-flop. Your landing was shaky, but you did get a 9.7 from the East German judge.
This, too, is a sport!
@Greg:
I didn’t see where he was prosecuted for such “crimes”. Can you provide the sources?
But FIRST you need credible evidence of a crime, of which you have… NONE.
The way you want to play is like with Kananaugh; make an outrageous, baseless charge, then expect the accused to prove it not true. Nope. Don’t work that way.
@Michael:
IOW, you got zip.
@retire05:
No, not even “in other words”; I told you myself that I didn’t bookmark it.
There was no subtext here for you to sleuth out. It was all text.
@Michael:
Well then, you cannot substantiate your claim.
Where did I mention “subtext?” I didn’t.
I’m beginning to think you are a stoner who hallucinates.
@Greg: Its hard to make the case to people who think taxation itself is theft.
The writer says he isnt against the President but repeatedly uses the word fraud, the writer who sells books for dummies….Seems yes they wished to pay as little in tax as they could, me too. Paid taxes as the law required at the time.
Hardly amts to treason as some in the last administration have done, say with thier connections to Skolkovo.
Again Congress is not a law enforcement arm of the government and should not without training and a 1/2 wit between all of them try to be.
Transactions between family members are often for less than market value. Gifts from wealthy parents so they can make sure their things go to who they want to have them before death much like a pre-planned funeral. This jealousy of those more fortunate or have worked hard and earned it is disgusting.
I can tell you this you will only hear what can be made to sound horrible.
It is Congress and the Supreme Court that check and balance the power of a president, because a president has administrative authority over the Department of Justice and is immune from prosecution by it, according to its policy. The Supreme Court has no independent investigative powers. That leaves Congress. If the oversight powers of Congress are neutralized, you’ve potentially got an autocrat, which would be the end of the republic. It would all depend upon one person’s intentions.
This is not an acceptable state of affairs. Thus we’re headed for a dangerous showdown—otherwise known as a constitutional crisis. It’s simply not reasonable to expect people whose eyes are open not to see this, or to be silent about it. Republicans seem to be willfully Out to Lunch.
@Greg:
Oh, Greggie Goebbels, that is soooo last week.
There is no Constitutional crisis looming. Do you not know how to do anything other than parrot left wing talking points generated by MediaMatters?
Meanwhile, the Congress is achieving nothing, i.e. legislating as they are supposed to do.
The effing President is misusing his power of office to obstruct justice and nullify lawful Congressional oversight authority to protect himself from examination. An oversight law that Congress did legislate, that has been on the books since 1924, is being openly ignored. What the hell would you call that?
What they are presently doing is the business of Congress, though they seem a little slow to get down to the brass tacks. I think they will, because this president can’t be dealt with in any other fashion.
@Greg: The Dems might just have a new top contender out of Vermont. its just rumor at this point but could we have a second President Lincoln? the name recognition alone….https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2019/03/08/Vermont-town-elects-goat-mayor/9281552069163
He hasnt made it official yet, I think he is far superior to any other democrat candidate that has tossed their hat in he ring so far.
@Greg:
What are they overseeing? What malfeasance do they have evidence of requiring access to the tax returns to substantiate? What other Presidents has this sort of preemptive “oversight” been deployed against?
These whiny, crybaby sore losers have already said they want to make sure the IRS was doing it’s job. That’s oversight of the IRS, not Trump and that is such a flimsy excuse that a fart would blow it away.
@kitt: That candidate’s pellets would be superior to the rest of the Democrat field.
May 21, 2019 — Former White House counsel Don McGahn did not attend his House hearing. The hearing happened anyway.
Both he and Barr were legally obliged to appear in response to their subpoenas, even if only to assert executive privilege and decline to answer certain questions. Not showing up isn’t actually an option.
We were only following orders doesn’t necessarily work as a personal defense before a judge.
@Deplorable Me, #139:
They are overseeing the conduct of whoever holds the highest office in the Executive Branch. Checks and Balances, remember? Looking into anything questionable is the checking part of that process.
You keep making the totally ridiculous assertion they are only allowed to check when evidence that something is wrong has already been established. That IS NOT how oversight works. Oversight includes monitoring. It involves vigilance. If they already had evidence in hand, there would be no need to look for it.
If Congress lacks such oversight power then nobody has it, owing to the fact that DoJ policy doesn’t allow the prosecution of a sitting president. Also, the DoJ can succumb to the power of the presidential office, which is what has apparently happened in the case of William Barr. He is clearly functioning as an extension of the will of Donald Trump.
@Greg:
Oh, I see, I see. And what is the “questionable” thing they are looking to oversee? Selling uranium to Russians? Using the IRS to attack political opponents? Spying on journalists? Getting consulates sacked? LYING about consulates being sacked? Promising Putin to “be more flexible”? Lying to Congress about a deal with Iran? Paying ransoms for hostages? Releasing dangerous terrorist leaders back into the terrorist market? Anything on that scale? Or, are they just searching… FISHING… hoping, wishing, fantasizing that something MIGHT be there?
Yeah… I think that’s it.
This isn’t oversight; it’s a shake down; or an attempt. Well, you’re fishing in a dry hole. You forgot the one thing you needed; a license.
If you can’t figure that out for yourself by now, you probably never will.
@Greg:
Well, that’s one of the drawbacks to relying on stuff like facts and evidence.
You’re full of what Trump dishes out on a daily basis. Unfortunately, insight is not on the menu.
May 21, 2019 — House panel issues subpoenas for Hope Hicks, Annie Donaldson
Do you understand what they’re doing? They’re establishing a clear record of the pattern of White House responses, for later presentation as evidence of obstruction. Are Trump’s legal advisers not smart enough to figure this out? They’re letting him walk right into it. It will be added to the evidence that supported Mueller’s conclusions, which they will also gain access to.
@Greg: I fully understand what theybare doing: anything but legislating. Theybare so pathetic they cling to the fantasy of finding that magic bullet to avoid losing to him again.
They’re seriously considering the only constitutional remedy. No magic is involved.
May 21, 2019 — Internal Draft of IRS Legal Memo Found Only One Legal Justification to Keep Trump’s Taxes From Congress
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/devin-nunes-fbi-wont-share-info-on-clinton-dirt-tipster-joseph-mifsud
Who is misrepresenting the nature of the investigation, Barr or Muellers team?