Trump's tax returns must be released to Congress, DOJ says

[CaughtInThe]

Looking at legislation on anonymous shell corporations would be something that could be looked into.

Trump's shell game is gonna be an eye opener for honest people.

I/we have known about shell companies for ages just not for a loud mouthed, high profile business person who swears he's Mother Theresa.

 

[911Sparky]

1. is there a requirement for a person to disclose taxes to run for president? yes/no

the answer is NO of course....doesnt matter what he SAID....there is no LAW saying he had to release them

for 5 plus years that has driven the democrats NUTZ....

what is he hiding?
why wont he release them?
what is he afraid of?

so the democrats have been trying everything to get their hands on them ever since

it is a PHISHING expedition...hoping again to find something that will not only hurt Trump but more importantly hurt the GOP

politics just keeps getting uglier and uglier

Of course they will find something. If there were no irregularities he would have released them as a candidate. The very fact that he didn't, despite promising to do so indicates there is something he didn't want made public. It may not have been anything illegal, but politically damaging. I personally would bet on both illegal and politically damaging, but we'll see.

 

[CaughtInThe]

If they have, they obviously haven't made any significant changes as a result.

WTF???

 

[CaughtInThe]

Of course they will find something. If there were no irregularities he would have released them as a candidate. The very fact that he didn't, despite promising to do so indicates there is something he didn't want made public. It may not have been anything illegal, but politically damaging. I personally would bet on both illegal and politically damaging, but we'll see.

I wonder how many lies Donald Trump told to REPUBLICANS.

 

[poppopfox]

Why is it that with Donald J Trump, the buck always stops way over there with someone else?

Like every single time.

“I don't take responsibility at all,” Trump said defiantly.

source

 

[911Sparky]

Remember when they were trying to paint Merrick Garland as a compromise "moderate"? Lmao.

Remember when Garland was nominated for a federal judgeship and the senate voted 98-2 to confirm him, then he was nominated for the supreme court and McConnell wouldn't even give him a hearing. I'm sure Garland does.

 

[911Sparky]

I wonder how many lies Donald Trump told to REPUBLICANS.

Let's face it, the man lied whenever he opened his mouth, some of those times had to be in front of republicans.

 

[NWRatCon]

I think within the year so much information is going to become available to prosecutors in multiple jurisdictions it will be hard to avoid indictments. The public pressure to do so will become intense.

Look, even his supporters are well aware that Trump is a low-life con man, it's just some of them adore that about him. They like him because he's "like them". But most people don't adore cheaters and liars. Even among Republicans he's more feared than liked. If asked, they'll say they "like what he did," not what he is. But there are reprobates who actually support the most loathsome aspects of "being Trump", many on this forum, because they perceive it as discomforting "libs". That's all they really care about.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

4th Amendment violation.

Why do you think this particular circumstance represents a 4th amendment violation?

What is your reasoning?

Just saying the phrase "4th amendment" isn't sufficient.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

I'm pretty sure Hatuey was being sardonic!

LOL, I wasn't sure, if he was, he was very convincing.

 

[NWRatCon]

Why do you think this particular circumstance represents a 4th amendment violation?

What is your reasoning?

Just saying the phrase "4th amendment" isn't sufficient.

Because he has no idea what the 4th Amendment actually means?

 

[OpportunityCost]

What I really want to see is the returns of every single Congress person and especially, how much money they make from insider trading highlighted. I also want to see how much PAC money they receive and all their donors.

They want transparency, they need to demonstrate it themselves.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Why do you think this particular circumstance represents a 4th amendment violation?

What is your reasoning?

Just saying the phrase "4th amendment" isn't sufficient.

FFS

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Congress needs to articulate the crime they want the taxes for, an accusation alone isn't enough, they need evidence of such, or they can be as transparent as they are demanding Trump be. I'm all for the latter.

 

[BlueTex]

FFS

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Congress needs to articulate the crime they want the taxes for, an accusation alone isn't enough, they need evidence of such, or they can be as transparent as they are demanding Trump be. I'm all for the latter.

Nice fantasy… who owns your tax information? Congress has no obligation to articulate anything… FFS… Read the law and over 100 years of jurisprudence on the subject.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Nice fantasy… who owns your tax information? Congress has no obligation to articulate anything… FFS… Read the law and over 100 years of jurisprudence on the subject.

He holds no office. I think you need to read the jurisprudence more carefully, they have articulated no credible legislative objective to seize the returns other than political chicanery.

Is there a reasonable right to privacy in your tax returns and personal finances and the answer is yes. Politicized government activity versus the citizenry, well, we know where the progressives stand---willing to sell out people to get Trump. Why don't you run on that and see what it gets you.

 

[BlueTex]

He holds no office. I think you need to read the jurisprudence more carefully, they have articulated no credible legislative objective to seize the returns other than political chicanery.

Is there a reasonable right to privacy in your tax returns and personal finances and the answer is yes. Politicized government activity versus the citizenry, well, we know where the progressives stand---willing to sell out people to get Trump. Why don't you run on that and see what it gets you.

Where in the law does it state they need to articulate a legislative objective to anyone? You do realize the privacy rights you are speaking of are a purely legislative construct, not some constitutional right. Hell, in the history of our country tax liabilities were published in newspapers.

 

[upsideguy]

trumps no longer in the mix. so why does it matter

Because Trump denied the congressional subpoena in 2019. You don't get to stall and just run out the clock. Trump accomplished what he wanted to, which was to defy Congress until after the election. Congress now gets what it rightfully sought before.

Since the Mueller campaign stopped short of a counter-intelligence query (Trump's financial records were never obtained to look for financial entanglements with Moscow), it is in the public interest that this line of inquiry be pursued and documented. If not for some type of near term action, then for the historical record.

 

[The AntiDonald]

only issue is Trump is NO LONGER PRESIDENT

cant see where their subpoena is still valid

It's valid since he refused to comply while he was president. He's also a rich guy who in all probability (we do actually know it's true) has been cheating on his taxes all his life following in his fathers footsteps. The congress does need to implement new laws to prevent all the rich guys from getting out of their taxes.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

FFS

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's a little more complicated than that. This isn't a subpoena. There's a law saying the IRS has to hand over the information Congress requests, but even if we just pretend, for the sake of argument, this is like a subpoena the weight of the case law favors the idea that Congress need only have a legitimate legislative or oversight-related basis for the request.

See page 67:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34097.pdf

Also, please read:

Can Congress force Trump to hand over his tax returns? We asked 11 legal experts.

Probably, but it’s complicated.

www.vox.com

Congress needs to articulate the crime they want the taxes for, an accusation alone isn't enough, they need evidence of such, or they can be as transparent as they are demanding Trump be. I'm all for the latter.

Hrmm. You are a very smart forum contributor, but I'm afraid on this issue you will need to do a bit more homework. Congress doesn't investigate crimes, but it can acquire evidence as it relates to oversight, and as it relates to its legislative powers (Congress needs to know if its currently enacted legislation works, as an example).

 

[W_Heisenberg]

What I really want to see is the returns of every single Congress person and especially, how much money they make from insider trading highlighted. I also want to see how much PAC money they receive and all their donors.

They want transparency, they need to demonstrate it themselves.

This is a good idea.

Unfortunately, the "conservative" Supreme Court would likely forbid this from ever happening.

As an example:

Supreme Court Strikes Down California Donor-Disclosure Rule​

Supreme Court Strikes Down California Donor-Disclosure Rule (1)

A divided U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a California requirement that charities list the names and addresses of their top donors in filings with the state, saying the rule violates the Constitution’s First Amendment.

news.bloomberglaw.com

 

[OpportunityCost]

Where in the law does it state they need to articulate a legislative objective to anyone? You do realize the privacy rights you are speaking of are a purely legislative construct, not some constitutional right. Hell, in the history of our country tax liabilities were published in newspapers.

The privacy right is a judicial construct construed from the 4th amendment.

This was from when Trump was still President and SCOTUS signaled Congress needed a purpose to get at tax information--- https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/09/richard-neal-supreme-court-trump-tax-355485

What’s more, while the court acknowledged Congress’ need for information as part of its oversight responsibilities, the justices emphasized that subpoenas directed at the president deserve extra scrutiny. Congress, the court said, must recognize that its investigatory powers are not unlimited.....The court sent the dispute back to a lower court with instructions to reconsider the issue, paying special attention to the separation of powers concerns it raised.

The problem lies in no clear legislative purpose, now that he is only a citizen. oversight isn't a legitimate concern. The real concern is political and that clearly isn't enough.

 

[BlueTex]

The privacy right is a judicial construct construed from the 4th amendment.

This was from when Trump was still President and SCOTUS signaled Congress needed a purpose to get at tax information--- https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/09/richard-neal-supreme-court-trump-tax-355485



The problem lies in no clear legislative purpose, now that he is only a citizen. oversight isn't a legitimate concern. The real concern is political and that clearly isn't enough.

Ok, slick let’s see those cites.. There is NOTHING in the law requiring legislative purpose.. zero, nada, zip

 

[upsideguy]

The same guy who committed perjury? No credibility there.

Irrelevant. No matter how little credibility a witness has, if he directs you to the body and you find the body, the body speaks for itself. In this case, the tax returns either are evidence in (or of) a crime or they not; Cohen's credibility is moot.

That all said, Congress does not investigate crimes. It does, however, investigate corruption, particularly of elected officials.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Ok, slick let’s see those cites.. There is NOTHING in the law requiring legislative purpose.. zero, nada, zip

From the article I just linked:
"Democrats, under pressure to show their suit is related to their official duties as lawmakers, say they need Trump’s returns to determine whether the IRS is doing an adequate job auditing the president under a routine practice that dates to 1977."

I will stand by my current position that Congress seeking tax returns is a violation of the 4th amendment expectation of privacy and Congress shouldn't abuse its power and demonstrate or articulate a need for the returns in question and we will not have a clear answer until this comes under a SCOTUS case---but SCOTUS already signaled they considered it a separation of powers issue for a sitting President.

 

[BlueTex]

From the article I just linked:
"Democrats, under pressure to show their suit is related to their official duties as lawmakers, say they need Trump’s returns to determine whether the IRS is doing an adequate job auditing the president under a routine practice that dates to 1977."

I will stand by my current position that Congress seeking tax returns is a violation of the 4th amendment expectation of privacy and Congress shouldn't abuse its power and demonstrate or articulate a need for the returns in question and we will not have a clear answer until this comes under a SCOTUS case---but SCOTUS already signaled they considered it a separation of powers issue for a sitting President.

How many times a year do you suppose the IRS releases tax information to government entities?