• 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!

Trump, sons sue to block House Democrats from obtaining his financial records

Chomsky said:
Well, in Trump's defense it may merely by Trump's narcissitic egomaniacle personality that's the problem here. But regardless, it doesn't matter; the Constitution trumps Trump (so to speak).
Click to expand...

I agree, at times trump does or says stuff that is totally unnecessary and in reality results in more problems than had they just cooperated or ignored it, Narcissists have issues acting like normal people it is part of what makes them what they are.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I will be interested to see what precedent the courts set for this. On one hand, I really don’t care about Trump’s taxes. There isn’t going to be anything in there any more incriminating than the Mueller report. I am pretty sure that the reason Trump doesn’t want them released is because it will make him look less rich than he claims to be. No, you can’t tell a person’s wealth from them but you can tell how much income they earned in that period and my guess is that it won’t the expected income of someone worth over $7B.

But on the other hand, I feel that over the decades Congress has ceded too much power to the Presidency and anything that helps move us back toward a proper balance sounds like a good idea to me.
Click to expand...

How is looking at the president's tax returns going to accomplish that?
 
MTAtech said:
I am delighted that you believe that Trump should have the same rights as every other citizen. Every other citizen has the right to have their tax records demanded by the Congress. That's been true since 1924, when the law was passed. Since then, the power was used to obtain Richard Nixon's taxes, which showed that he had cheated to the tune of $500,000.

The bottom line is that a taxpayer does not own or have exclusive privacy rights to their tax documents. The IRS typically shares this information with states and law enforcement. Simply speaking, there is no legal leg for Trump to stand on. Trump is merely using this as a delaying tactic because his taxes probably reveal damning evidence.

IN RELATED NEWS: Trump commented on the Notre Dame fire, stating that the only copy of his taxes were in that building.
Click to expand...

If Congress decided they need my specific tax returns for no other purpose than to dig up dirt on me, they would be just as wrong as they are now trying to dig up dirt on Trump.

But don't worry, after it's all over I think the courts will side with Trump.
 
tres borrachos said:
The government pries into your finances all the time. Do you have your money in a bank, or in your mattress? Do you work? File taxes? Have investments? If the answers are "yes", then your finances are always being scrutinized.
Click to expand...
Indeed, the government certainly does that.

I said Trump, (an individual) doesn't pry into my finances, so I won't pry into his.
 
apdst said:
How is looking at the president's tax returns going to accomplish that?
Click to expand...

I don’t care about the tax part, but if the courts uphold Congress’ power to subpoena a President it helps accomplish that.
 
jmotivator said:
Within the scope of oversight, sure. But he scope of Oversight granted congressional inquiries is with regard to the POTUS administration of existing law.. acts of the POTUS within the role of chief executive, not the private life of the Executive. There is a difference.
Click to expand...
There's no such requirement that only documents relating to the presidents time in office can be sought in the Constitution, you're making that up. How do you think Congress got it's hands on the Whitewater documents?

When it comes to investigating a president, the courts don't second guess the Congresses motives.

Such a "premise" is a presumption of guilt, which the Constitution forbids.
Click to expand...
No, again, there's no such thing in the Constitution that Congress must take an executives word, or else they're guilty. Not that it matters anyways, since Congress isn't a court of law.

Remember, it was the GOP that said after the FBI chose not to indict Clinton that they wanted all the 302's to "verify the FBI's word" anyways. What's good for the goose is now going to be good for the gander, and you can thank them for the precedent that was set.

Before Congress can collect private documents, they will need to establish probable cause like any other policing power.
Click to expand...
OMG, dude search warrants require probable cause, not a subpoena. You clearly are conflating the two, or you're pretending to not know the difference because the target is one of your guys.
 
Chomsky said:
It doesn't happen to you or I, because we are not President!

But in reality, this is exactly the way the system was designed to work, as enshrined in the Constitution. the House provides executive oversight, and in the end it is ultimately political; just as impeachment is. It all comes down to the desires of the People, and they installed Democrats to represent them.
Click to expand...

Citing Congressional oversight in this matter is a perversion of that very important responsibility that Congress has.

Congressional oversight

Congressional oversight refers to oversight by the United States Congress on the Executive Branch, including the numerous U.S. federal agencies. Congressional oversight refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation. Congress exercises this power largely through its congressional committee system. However, oversight, which dates to the earliest days of the Republic, also occurs in a wide variety of congressional activities and contexts. These include authorization, appropriations, investigative, and legislative hearings by standing committees; specialized investigations by select committees; and reviews and studies by congressional support agencies and staff. Congress’s oversight authority derives from its “implied” powers in the Constitution, public laws, and House and Senate rules. It is an integral part of the American system of checks and balances.

What does Congressional oversight mean?
Click to expand...

I don't see anything in that definition that mentions "I don't like the guy and I want to know everything about him."
 
SkyChief said:
Indeed, the government certainly does that.

I said Trump, (an individual) doesn't pry into my finances, so I won't pry into his.
Click to expand...

You won't have access to his taxes. So you don't have to worry about prying into them.
 
Chomsky said:
To the bolded, I'd prefer presidential candidate tax return release being mandatory, as it had been done customary during modern times until Trump. But you are right, it was up to the voters - and will be again in 2020 as you stated.

But that differs from Congressional oversight.
Click to expand...
Congressional Oversight is intended to oversee government operations, and ensure the laws they pass are being executed as intended, not to pry into individual's personal finances. They are a co-equal branch of government not an all powerful star chamber.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The IRS MUST COMPLY with a request for tax information from the Chair of the Ways and Means Committee. It's the law. RFN the IRS and the Treasury are breaking the law.
Click to expand...

The court will decide if the IRS "MUST COMPLY".

In any case, the OP isn't about tax information. It's about private financial information.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I will be interested to see what precedent the courts set for this. On one hand, I really don’t care about Trump’s taxes. There isn’t going to be anything in there any more incriminating than the Mueller report. I am pretty sure that the reason Trump doesn’t want them released is because it will make him look less rich than he claims to be. No, you can’t tell a person’s wealth from them but you can tell how much income they earned in that period and my guess is that it won’t the expected income of someone worth over $7B.

But on the other hand, I feel that over the decades Congress has ceded too much power to the Presidency and anything that helps move us back toward a proper balance sounds like a good idea to me.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty troubling conclusion. I would agree 100% that the Congress has ceded too much power to the Executive. We constitutionalists tried to warn the Democrats of the blank policy checks written into Obamacare that were at the discretion of the Administration, and not subject to congressional oversight, for instance. But you don't correct that by abolishing constitutional protections against unwarranted search and seizure. That grows the police state which, in effect, expands the power of the chief executive.

The way you fix power creep in the chief executive is to write laws in bite sized portions with unambiguous verbiage leaving only the letter of the law to be enforced by the executive, and holding the chief executive to account whenever they choose not to abide by or enforce the law.

By allowing the chief executive to essentially write their own law through Executive Order, and abolish law through refusal to enforce laws they don't like, we have created the too powerful office of the executive we have seen over the last 20 years.

Unfortunately, both parties only agree to destroy the One Ring when it isn't in their possession, we forever walk it to the cliffs edge within Mount Doom only to turn back.

So broken in the power creep that we have the bizarre legal fight now, waged predominantly by judges appointed by Democrats, who rule that the Office of the Executive doesn't have the power to cancel Executive orders... meaning, according to those judges at least, the office of the Executive can only accumulate power, but can not shed it.
 
jmotivator said:
You seem to be fuzzy on the meaning of what you just wrote.
Click to expand...
Says the man that conflates warrants with subpoenas.

Congressional oversight in limited to oversight of the actions of the chief executive as it pertains to the administration of the office.
Click to expand...
And guess what? Verifying that the president is complying with Emoluments clause and is not financially conflicting is a perfectly legitimate function of that, and you bet your ass the courts will eventually rule that way.

General oversight doesn't grant them an open door into the private life of the executive unless they have probably cause to tie him to a known crime. You can't open his private life to scrutiny to find a crime to investigate.
Click to expand...
They don't have to accuse the president of a crime. All they need is cause to have as much information as possible for the oversight duties

Why do you suppose Obama's birth Certificate was unavailable until Obama deemed fit to provide it? Or his school records? The reason it was totally up to Obama is the very same reason it is totally up to Trump on who gets to see his tax records.
Click to expand...
His birth and school records were more the jurisdiction of state authorities, while the financial information relating to Trump goes through the IRS, which is federal, so it's apples to oranges.

The law is clear that the chairman of the W&M Committee may request the tax records of ANY citizens, without any reason, and hold a closed session for others to see them. This law was literally put in place for Congress to inquire about the financial motivations we're talking about.

I know you don't like the law, but it's crystal clear that it's not up to Trump.
 
Well they didn't get what they wanted from Mueller after putting Trump and is administration through proctology exams that lasted 18 months so now they want to go on another fishing expedition. There has been two subpoenas issued from two different committees in the House. One was asking in a broad sense documents pertaining to not just Trump's taxes but info his family, including all the people his company has relations with and we are talking about thousands of persons. This is the subpoena that the Trump family filed to quash.

The second one had a more narrow request. They can subpoena all they want and this will all play out in the courts all the way to the Supreme Court. And if it can be proved that the motivations of these subpoenas by the Democratic party were politically motivated, it will be a win for Trump.

This whole thing will take time to play out and give all the anti-trump media something to focus on but in the end it is going to end just like the Russia Russia, collusion happy horse poop the American people were put through. So good luck Dems in your endeavors because everyday you continue on your great fishing expedition because everyday it continues you prove Trump's point of presidential harassment.
 
Mycroft said:
A preemptive strike against the House Dems. Good.

Anyway, I disagree. I think there IS such a thing as too much transparency. Our democratic process has been doing fine for more than two hundred years without it. Some things should stay private...especially things that ALL citizens expect to stay private. A President doesn't give up the rights that every citizen has.
Click to expand...

That was true until Trump was elected. He has a shady past and as president we need to know just how shady.
 
Mycroft said:
I'd say the only reason for the House Dems to delve into personal information is in cases of impeachment. By that, I mean the House should vote to start impeachment proceedings. Then, they can subpoena records they think they need. At the same time, the defense can subpoena stuff they need. Then, when they are all ready to get it on, have at it before the entire House. In public.

But just saying "I think he might be doing something bad, therefore I deserve to get everything." is wrong. It's an invasion of privacy.

That kind of invasion of privacy shouldn't happen to me, shouldn't happen to you and shouldn't happen to Trump.
Click to expand...

Dems aren't going to impeach. The idea and notion of impeachment, so they can speculate and smear Trump, is more advantageous for their purposes. Otherwise, they'd have done it by now. Instead, they will continue their never-ending investigations and harassment.
 
MovingPictures said:
Trump has demonstrated himself to be a compulsive and pathological liar, who history has proven is not also afraid to falsify other records like insurance forms, so taking his financial disclosures as gospel is foolish.

If presidents with financial entanglements that can conflict with their WH duties are allowed to keep direct sources that could reveal such information secret, you can bet all kinds of highway crooks will start seeking public office to become walking bribes for special interests.
Click to expand...


That ship (bolded) has sailed!
 
Skeptic Bob said:
I don’t care about the tax part, but if the courts uphold Congress’ power to subpoena a President it helps accomplish that.
Click to expand...

Subpoenaing private documents isn't a power Congress has. It would be giving Congress a power that The Constitution doesn't prescribe.
 
Carleen said:
That was true until Trump was elected. He has a shady past and as president we need to know just how shady.
Click to expand...

Shallow nonsense to justify intrusion for political purposes is still shallow nonsense.

You don't have any more right to his private information than you have to my private information.
 
MovingPictures said:
There's no such requirement that only documents relating to the presidents time in office can be sought in the Constitution, you're making that up. How do you think Congress got it's hands on the Whitewater documents?
Click to expand...

Absolutely there are. Sorry for the spoilers.

Congress didn't get their hands on Whitewater documentation. Congress impeached Bill Clinton for lying in his Paula Jones deposition.

When it comes to investigating a president, the courts don't second guess the Congresses motives.
Click to expand...


View attachment 67255587


No, again, there's no such thing in the Constitution that Congress must take an executives word, or else they're guilty. Not that it matters anyways, since Congress isn't a court of law.
Click to expand...

The Constitution applies at all levels of government including the President and Congress. The Congress is not permitted to go digging around through a Presidents private documents hunting for a crime.

Remember, it was the GOP that said after the FBI chose not to indict Clinton that they wanted all the 302's to "verify the FBI's word" anyways. What's good for the goose is now going to be good for the gander, and you can thank them for the precedent that was set.
Click to expand...

... you do realize that 302s are publicly produced records generated by the executive brancj of government, yes? .. oh you don't? Oh how embarrassing for you.

Documents created by Federal Agencies are records created in is the execution of the duties of the Chief executive and are therefor indeed within to scope of Congressional oversight of the office of the executive.

OMG, dude search warrants require probable cause, not a subpoena. You clearly are conflating the two, or you're pretending to not know the difference because the target is one of your guys.
Click to expand...

You are discussing a crime, which would grant you access to private documentation. A subpoena is limited to unprivileged information (ie. documents created from the execution of the duties of the chief executive.). If you want private privileged documents it would need to be connected to a suspicion of a known crime, which would require probable cause.
 
Acadia said:
Dems aren't going to impeach. The idea and notion of impeachment, so they can speculate and smear Trump, is more advantageous for their purposes. Otherwise, they'd have done it by now. Instead, they will continue their never-ending investigations and harassment.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They are using their government powers for political purposes...just like the Obama administration did.
 
Mycroft said:
Exactly. They are using their government powers for political purposes...just like the Obama administration did.
Click to expand...

Weaponizing the DOJ. Again.
 
Acadia said:
Weaponizing the DOJ. Again.
Click to expand...

That's what Obama did, though it wasn't just the DOJ. He weaponized a number of executive branch agencies.

What the House Dems are doing is weaponizing Congress.

Just as bad. Just as corrupt.
 
Mycroft said:
Exactly. They are using their government powers for political purposes...just like the Obama administration did.
Click to expand...

Trumps Sister randomly and swiftly steps down as a federal appellate judge ending an investigation into whether she violated judicial conduct rules by participating in fraudulent tax schemes with her siblings. " Court officials said on Feb. 1 that an inquiry into Barry was receiving the full attention of the judicial conduct council. A little over a week later, Barry submitted her resignation. The probe has now been dropped, according to the Times."
And you people are telling me Congress has no reason to question Trump or his siblings over their taxes?
 
Chomsky said:
I prefer the former (transparency). I don't think you can ever have too much transparency, and that it's important for the democratic process. If the truth happens to shine negatively, oh well, let it fall where it may!
Click to expand...

Ahh I missed your calls for the Hillary email scandal underlying documents to be released...Bravo!
 
Finch said:
Trumps Sister randomly and swiftly steps down as a federal appellate judge ending an investigation into whether she violated judicial conduct rules by participating in fraudulent tax schemes with her siblings. " Court officials said on Feb. 1 that an inquiry into Barry was receiving the full attention of the judicial conduct council. A little over a week later, Barry submitted her resignation. The probe has now been dropped, according to the Times."
And you people are telling me Congress has no reason to question Trump or his siblings over their taxes?
Click to expand...

Let me know when the Dems demand her tax records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom