Judge orders Trump Accounts to hand over info to House!

[ludin]

The law does not require them to provide any evidence or reason... period... full stop...

actually it does.
congress is not a law enforcement agency.
they do not have the power to go fishing for crimes.

this has been established time and time again.

 

[BlueTex]

which has restrictions on it.

Well then, you should be able to cite those restrictions from the statute... Feel free... For convenience, here is a link to the statute...

26 U.S. Code SS 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Section f is the section you want...

 

[Praxas]

Umm hello that is calling someone a liar. what part of that don't you understand?

No, it isn't. What part of that don't you understand? If you feel I am calling him a liar (which I am not) there are methods that can be used. Until then, I will continue to call out lying on his and your part.

actually it does because well he ignored already established law on this ruling.

No, he has not. See my post right above yours for the reasons. It is a legitimate reason.

Nope i can dismiss what he says because he has no reason to be objectionable.
congress can prove no wrongdoing by trump. the only reason for the request is to try and find a crime.
that right there is beyond their scope layed out in the constitution.

So does that mean ANY Trump appointed judge has no reason to be objectionable and should be dismissed outright because Trump appointed them?

congress does not have law enforcement powers. they do not have the power to fish for crimes.
if the judge was being objectionable then he would have questioned the congressional lawyers.

Congress is looking to possibly strengthen discloser and ethics laws. THAT is a legitimate reason.

he actually violated trumps rights on that. trump is innocent until proven guilty and it is the state that has to
defend their position. they have no defense of their position as they have no evidence of wrong doing.

Nope you are incorrect.

however democrats have opened the can unfortunately they can't let it go.
they should have just dropped it.

Nope, they have every right.

if a democrat is elected president i expect a full investigation of their entire life from when they were born
to recent. i hope they kept a financial record of every penny they made and earned. how they made every investment
that they made and sold.

Well unlike Trump, Dems HAVE released their tax returns to the public. So good luck with that. :lamo

I think it is nonsense and ruins this country but well when you opened the can this is what you get.
and you will have 0 room to complain about it.

Of course you think it is nonsense because you will excuse away any corruption of Trump. You are dismissed con.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And the answer is that "any reason" is wherever on that list that Congress decides it is.
:shrug:

Congress decides what constitutes an impeachable offense.

Congress decides what the rules of an impeachment trial are.

Congress decides when to impeach.

AfaIct, our govt lacks any mechanism for another branch of govt to countermand Congress in re impeachment.

That's all well and good, but congress cannot define the impeachment process (power?) to mean that prior to any such process they get to see anything that they wish simply because they think that it might come in handy should they actually (later) decide to use the impeachment process (power?).

 

[OlNate]

There is no difference. Don't call me a liar. Ever.

There is a difference. You're lying. Don't be such a liar.





:lamo

lol...calm down, over there, Ocean, he walked his comment back...I wouldn't have even done that for ya.

 

[BlueTex]

actually it does.
congress is not a law enforcement agency.
they do not have the power to go fishing for crimes.

this has been established time and time again.

Where in the statute are these limitations? Please cite the times when your assertion has been "established"... Can they investigate as part of changing the law? Can they propose legislation making the presidents tax returns public information?

 

[Praxas]

sorry that doesn't defend the point.

so what is the point all politicians do it.
it doesn't matter what level how often.

a lie is a lie period.

so again what is the point.

When you (general you) lie more than the last two presidents combined in their terms (That's 16 years between them) and you have done so before your first term is even up that is on a UNPRECIDENTED level and is cause for alarm.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

current investigative procedures have been fine for the past 60 years.
so no they don't have a legislative reason.
more so with all the dubious business dealings by clinton and obama.
so no they are not.

So you say.

It seems that US courts for the past hundred years or so say differently,

:shrug:


But let me ask you this:

If the DoJ is unable to indict a sitting president, and Congress is unable to investigate a sitting president, what remedy is there for dealing with the situation if someone like Crooked Killary took the office?

Who would be able to investigate, expose, and stop a Crooked Killary kind of PotUS?

 

[Praxas]

That's all well and good, but congress cannot define the impeachment process (power?) to mean that prior to any such process they get to see anything that they wish simply because they think that it might come in handy should they actually (later) decide to use the impeachment process (power?).

And that is not what they are doing. They are looking to possibly strengthen ethics and disclosure laws because this president has conflicting interests that may require those laws to be changed. Congress gave their reason which IS a legislative reason for requesting Trump's finances. Again, you may not LIKE those reasons, but they have fulfilled their requirement for requesting his finances. Also want to point out Republicans had no problem when Republicans had done this to a Dem previously.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

actually it does.
congress is not a law enforcement agency.
they do not have the power to go fishing for crimes.

this has been established time and time again.

afaIct, Congress is seeking information to "aid its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, as well as amending the penalties for violating such laws."

Additionally, Congress seeks to exercise its authority to monitor the PotUS in re the PotUS's "compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clauses". [Foreign emoluments are one of those Constitutional issues.]

per https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6019022/20-19-Opinion-House-v-Trump.pdf



Which branch of govt has the job to monitor the Office of the PotUS in re constitutional issues like emoluments?

1. The PotUS?
2. The SCotUS?
3. Or Congress? The ones who have the power to do something about PotUS violations of the Constitution?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well then, you should be able to cite those restrictions from the statute... Feel free... For convenience, here is a link to the statute...

26 U.S. Code SS 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Section f is the section you want...

That law is very interesting (and complicated) it seems that (all or many) names other than that of the requested taxpayer must (should?) be redacted.

(10) Limitation on certain disclosures under this subsection
In the case of an inspection or disclosure under this subsection relating to the return of a partnership, S corporation, trust, or an estate, the information inspected or disclosed shall not include any supporting schedule, attachment, or list which includes the taxpayer identity information of a person other than the entity making the return or the person conducting the inspection or to whom the disclosure is made.

 

[gdgyva]

How would one go about changing the law regarding presidential tax information? Perhaps and investigation and reviewing tax information? They would probably start with a report... Kinda like this one from Feb 2019...

JCX-3-19

no...you put it up for a vote to the states...make it an amendment to the constitution

need 75% of the states to ratify it

at this point i dont see that as a problem

that is how we get things done here....legally as opposed to the way this is happening

 

[BlueTex]

That law is very interesting (and complicated) it seems that (all or many) names other than that of the requested taxpayer must (should?) be redacted.

That only applies when the information requested is disclosed to a person having material interest. It's part of 26 USC 6103 (e)

 

[BlueTex]

no...you put it up for a vote to the states...make it an amendment to the constitution

need 75% of the states to ratify it

at this point i dont see that as a problem

that is how we get things done here....legally as opposed to the way this is happening

No constitutional amendment is needed... Tax information has not always been private.. Prior to 1976 tax records were considered public information. Congress could easily pass a law making a sitting presidents tax records public again.

Just for fun, you might want to read this:

United States v. Dickey :: 268 U.S. 378 (1925) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That's all well and good, but congress cannot define the impeachment process (power?) to mean that prior to any such process they get to see anything that they wish simply because they think that it might come in handy should they actually (later) decide to use the impeachment process (power?).

What if LEOs were able to charge people with crimes but were unable to conduct investigations?

Who is to monitor the Executive Branch for violations of the Constitution (e.g. emoluments)?

If Congress is tasked with deciding if a President's conduct constitutes an impeachable offense, how should Congress make a decision except that they gather information?

Are they to just politely ask the Executive Branch of the Executive Branch is up to no good?

It seems entirely reasonable for the party responsible for charging folks with a crime should have the power to investigate to see if a crime has actually occurred.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You could read for yourself if you like —
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6019022/20-19-Opinion-House-v-Trump.pdf

"According to the Oversight Committee, it believes that the requested records will aid its consideration of strengthening ethics and disclosure laws, as well as amending the penalties for violating such laws. The Committee also says that the records will assist in monitoring the President’s compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clauses. These are facially valid legislative purposes, and it is not for the court to question whether the Committee’s actions are truly motivated by political considerations."​

fwiw, emoluments are specifically listed in the US Constitution

Emoluments violations do not apply prior to the POTUS taking office. One can accept gifts from or do business with foreign entities for profit prior to taking office without violating the emoluments clause.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And that is not what they are doing. They are looking to possibly strengthen ethics and disclosure laws because this president has conflicting interests that may require those laws to be changed. Congress gave their reason which IS a legislative reason for requesting Trump's finances. Again, you may not LIKE those reasons, but they have fulfilled their requirement for requesting his finances. Also want to point out Republicans had no problem when Republicans had done this to a Dem previously.

Really? In that case, impeach him ASAP based on that evidence.

 

[j brown's body]

Not true.

IMO, the road to tyranny is being paved by New Democratic Party House members.

I can't speak for others, but I would be making the same argument if the roles were completely reversed.

I have listed the hypocrisy that supports tyranny. That you suggest Trump doesn't act in a partisan manner suggests a willful blindness.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What if LEOs were able to charge people with crimes but were unable to conduct investigations?

Who is to monitor the Executive Branch for violations of the Constitution (e.g. emoluments)?

If Congress is tasked with deciding if a President's conduct constitutes an impeachable offense, how should Congress make a decision except that they gather information?

Are they to just politely ask the Executive Branch of the Executive Branch is up to no good?

It seems entirely reasonable for the party responsible for charging folks with a crime should have the power to investigate to see if a crime has actually occurred.

Hmm... if congress lacks evidence of a crime (by the POTUS) then they should be able to use that (lack of evidence) as reason to investigate the POTUS?

That seems akin to "I need a search warrant to see if Mr. X might have done something illegal" which runs counter to the 4A.

 

[Praxas]

Really? In that case, impeach him ASAP based on that evidence.

I would love for them too. Hell the Republicans you supported impeached Clinton for lying about a blowjob. Trump's actions are much much worse.

Now, care to tell us how Congress reasons for requesting Trump's finances are not legitimate after I showed the legitimate reason they gave? Or are you going to try and say congress looking to strengthen ethics and disclosure laws is not a legislative reason? :lamo

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Emoluments violations do not apply prior to the POTUS taking office. One can accept gifts from or do business with foreign entities for profit prior to taking office without violating the emoluments clause.

Exactly!

If an office holder takes gifts etc. from foreigners at 08:59 and their swearing in is at 09:00, all is good.

There's no way that emoluments which happened at 08:59 could have any effect on an office holder at 09:00, right?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Hmm... if congress lacks evidence of a crime (by the POTUS) then they should be able to use that (lack of evidence) as reason to investigate the POTUS?

If you say so. lol


If Congress is charged with determining if a crime occurred, how should they make that determination w/o gathering evidence?

Psychic hotlines or something?

 

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly!

If an office holder takes gifts etc. from foreigners at 08:59 and their swearing in is at 09:00, all is good.

There's no way that emoluments which happened at 08:59 could have any effect on an office holder at 09:00, right?

Yep, and one minute prior to taking office is "just like" 7 or 8 years before taking office. After all, its Trump we are dealing with!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Yep, and one minute prior to taking office is "just like" 7 or 8 years before taking office. After all, its Trump we are dealing with!

So you concede that at least some actions which happen prior to someone taking office could fall under the category of emoluments?

We're now just talking about the duration of that window of relevance?

You say that the window is larger than one minute, but smaller than 7 years?

 

[ttwtt78640]

If you say so. lol


If Congress is charged with determining if a crime occurred, how should they make that determination w/o gathering evidence?

Psychic hotlines or something?

The same way police and prosecutors do - get a warrant based on probable cause. Simply being POTUS, or Trump, is not cause to investigate to see if some crime might have been committed. What appears to be the case, is that since Trump made some folks (who just happen to be congressional demorats?) mad by making pro-Putin comments then he must be a criminal.

The problem is that you don't start an investigation by identifying a suspect and then investigate them to see what crime they just might have committed.