• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would impeachment proceedings force the White House to provide info requested by the House?

Lutherf said:
The House is abusing its subpoena power. Trump actually has an obligation to tell them to **** off because if he doesn't the tactics Democrats are using will become precedent.
Click to expand...

When was last time an appeals court or the Supreme Court ruled that a congress was overstepping it’s bounds with a subpoena?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BlueTex said:
When was last time an appeals court or the Supreme Court ruled that a congress was overstepping it’s bounds with a subpoena?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

When was the last time a congress subpoenaed the tax return of a president?

Making one's tax return public IS NOT a Constitutional requirement for a candidate for president or for a sitting president. "Investigating" a president's tax return is not a standard function of Congress. There is an IRS to handle that kind of thing. Now, if the IRS came back and said "we found all kinds of problems with Trump's return and he won't fix it" THEN there might be a legitimate purpose for a committee to pull his returns. Going around that whole process is PURE politics and should NEVER be allowed.
 
Lutherf said:
When was the last time a congress subpoenaed the tax return of a president?

Making one's tax return public IS NOT a Constitutional requirement for a candidate for president or for a sitting president. "Investigating" a president's tax return is not a standard function of Congress. There is an IRS to handle that kind of thing. Now, if the IRS came back and said "we found all kinds of problems with Trump's return and he won't fix it" THEN there might be a legitimate purpose for a committee to pull his returns. Going around that whole process is PURE politics and should NEVER be allowed.
Click to expand...


I'll answer the question for you... 1880.... There have been thousands and thousands of congressional subpoenas since then...

The tax return subpoena is even more clear... The law does not require a subpoena nor does it require any justification whatsoever. Perhaps it shouldn't be allowed but the law is crystal clear and the house will win that lawsuit. If congress wants to put limitations on their ability to get tax information, it will require modifying the law. I wouldn't expect a change anytime some. Congress could revise the law and make all presidents tax returns public information. Perhaps that's what the house is exploring.
 
BlueTex said:
I'll answer the question for you... 1880.... There have been thousands and thousands of congressional subpoenas since then...

The tax return subpoena is even more clear... The law does not require a subpoena nor does it require any justification whatsoever. Perhaps it shouldn't be allowed but the law is crystal clear and the house will win that lawsuit. If congress wants to put limitations on their ability to get tax information, it will require modifying the law. I wouldn't expect a change anytime some. Congress could revise the law and make all presidents tax returns public information. Perhaps that's what the house is exploring.
Click to expand...

1880? The 16th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1913.
 
Lutherf said:
When was the last time a congress subpoenaed the tax return of a president?

Making one's tax return public IS NOT a Constitutional requirement for a candidate for president or for a sitting president. "Investigating" a president's tax return is not a standard function of Congress. There is an IRS to handle that kind of thing. Now, if the IRS came back and said "we found all kinds of problems with Trump's return and he won't fix it" THEN there might be a legitimate purpose for a committee to pull his returns. Going around that whole process is PURE politics and should NEVER be allowed.
Click to expand...

Precisely. Plus, the IRS has never charged Trump with any serious irregularity in all his years in business. Why Schiff and Nadler think they can do a better job than the IRS, is puzzling.
 
veritas1 said:
Precisely. Plus, the IRS has never charged Trump with any serious irregularity in all his years in business. Why Schiff and Nadler think they can do a better job than the IRS, is puzzling.
Click to expand...

They have no plan to do a "better" job. Their plan is to do a "different" job. Their plan is to leak Trump's personal information for political purposes.
 
Lutherf said:
1880? The 16th Amendment wasn't ratified until 1913.
Click to expand...

This actually came up during the hearing Tuesday on Mazar's subpoena...

Judge Amit Mehta of the US District Court for the District of Columbia began the session by highlighting just how unusual it would be for the federal court to narrow a congressional inquiry and how problematic for him to rule in a way that predicted future legislation.

"Am I right there isn't a single Supreme Court case or appellate case since 1880 that has found a congressional subpoena overstepped its bounds?" Mehta asked Trump's lawyer. "I agree there are outer limits, but it's not clear to me what they are."

Mehta said he would not rule on the subpoena this week.

Mehta also noted how Congress has done historically important work with investigations in the past, like in the Watergate and Whitewater investigations.

"Shouldn't I be presuming in this case that what Congress is doing is constitutional?" Mehta said as he questioned Trump's side. Considering what Congress could do with what information it gathers "frankly strikes me as opinion-driven judicial decision making," he said.
 
veritas1 said:
Precisely. Plus, the IRS has never charged Trump with any serious irregularity in all his years in business. Why Schiff and Nadler think they can do a better job than the IRS, is puzzling.
Click to expand...

Why do you assume they are merely auditing his tax returns?
 
Lutherf said:
The House is abusing its subpoena power. Trump actually has an obligation to tell them to **** off because if he doesn't the tactics Democrats are using will become precedent.
Click to expand...

And what makes you think that the house is abusing its power? Is it because you want to defend Trump at any cost? And the tactics you talk about are already been set as precedent by other congresses including a GOP controlled congress. Trump may be violating the constitution by his actions and the courts will end up deciding that. If the courts rule in favor of the House and the Dems, than what trump is presently doing could be cause for additional cases of obstruction of justice and be impeachable. Just the fact that Trump and his minions are violating the law allowing the House to see tax returns is only one law they are violating, but you don't care as long as yo can defend anything Trump and the GOP do.
 
BlueTex said:
Why do you assume they are merely auditing his tax returns?
Click to expand...

Whatever it is they think they will discover, is something the IRS would have already seen. It's 100% politics, of course.
 
veritas1 said:
Whatever it is they think they will discover, is something the IRS would have already seen. It's 100% politics, of course.
Click to expand...

Which is, of course, exactly what President Nixon said.... and then paid $471,431 plus interest when it was discovered that he had backdated a gift....
 
BlueTex said:
Which is, of course, exactly what President Nixon said.... and then paid $471,431 plus interest when it was discovered that he had backdated a gift....
Click to expand...

That involved the state of CA, not Congress or the federal government.
 
Athanasius68 said:
ok-- so the standards of the Intelligence agencies should control who Americans can vote for president...
Click to expand...

Considering we have a Russian asset in the Whitehouse, that action would seem prudent...
 
veritas1 said:
Yes, but it was pursued by the state of CA, not the IRS or Congress.
Click to expand...

Nonsense... It was the House Joint Committee on Taxation that audited his returns and found the discrepancies...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom