Trump asks Supreme Court to shield financial records from House Democrats

Taylor · Dec 5, 2019

CaughtInThe said:
And exactly comparable to what I actually mentioned.

Cool, so we both agree that Obama did not pass quality, affordable healthcare, did not have anywhere near the most transparent administration in history, and did not have an administration free from scandal.

Glad we cleared that up.

apdst · Dec 5, 2019

TheDoctorWasIn said:
Well, no. It's not illegal for Congress to go public with Trump's tax returns.

It is, on the other hand, illegal for the IRS to not provide Congress with Trump's tax returns.

:lamo

The Law:...except that any return or return information which can be associated with, or otherwise identify, directly or indirectly, a particular taxpayer shall be furnished to such committee only when sitting in closed executive session unless such taxpayer otherwise consents in writing to such disclosure.

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

So no, Congress can't release anyone's tax returns. You're dead wrong. Doing so would be a felony.

TheDoctorWasIn · Dec 5, 2019

apdst said:
:lamo

So no, Congress can't release anyone's tax returns. You're dead wrong. Doing so would be a felony.

Well, you see - heres the thing.

Members of Congress can actually release anything they want - all they have to do is stand up and read it into the Congressional Record.

As I said before, it's all part of the Speech and Debate clause. Members of Congress can't be punished for anything they say on the floor.

This is how the Pentagon Papers were released.

CaughtInThe · Dec 5, 2019

Taylor said:
Cool, so we both agree that Obama did not pass quality, affordable healthcare, did not have anywhere near the most transparent administration in history, and did not have an administration free from scandal.

Glad we cleared that up.

Hey, if it makes you happy throw some things out there to defend the New York City crook and liar I'm okay with that.

apdst · Dec 5, 2019

TheDoctorWasIn said:
Well, you see - heres the thing.

Members of Congress can actually release anything they want - all they have to do is stand up and read it into the Congressional Record.

The law I posted says they can't.

As I said before, it's all part of the Speech and Debate clause. Members of Congress can't be punished for anything they say on the floor.

This is how the Pentagon Papers were released.

You might want to go read that clause:

...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

So, you're wrong, again; Congress critters aren't above the law.

The Pentagon Papers were leaked to the NYT.

HenryChinaski · Dec 5, 2019

Exactice said:
Yes there are ways to effectively do this. NOW here is the questions

1) Is it Illegal to file your taxes in a way that you end up PAYING no taxes?
2) In this event where X person does NOT pay actual taxes, There has to be a legal reason why? Deductions and Losses correct? THIS IS the legal way to reduce your TAX burden because of sustain actual losses
3) You have, it under a company/entity and pay out in Bonuses. BUT the company is a living entity that pays Taxes thus, legitimate Taxes? You cant avoid actual taxes?

To my final point. While they may be able to avoid Federal Taxes. They STILL have to buy things and pay state and local taxes that keep the economy going correct? So While they may avoid the X Tax brackets

They still pay their State/city local taxes that fund and pay the every day economy?

Most of the tricks that they use are legal though questionable. Equity swapping setting up shell companies and trust funds. Setting up GRATS to avoid estate taxes. These are all loopholes put in place to by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy, those from that elite sector of society. These rules aren’t for the common working man. And yes there is something fundamentally wrong when someone making $49.000 a year is paying a much higher rate, giving more of their income to the government than a billionaire.

TheDoctorWasIn · Dec 5, 2019

apdst said:
The law I posted says they can't.

You might want to go read that clause:

...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

So, you're wrong, again; Congress critters aren't above the law.

The Pentagon Papers were leaked to the NYT.

Releasing tax returns is not a felony. It's not even a crime.

As for the Pentagon Papers, they were given to the Times by Daniel Ellsberg, but the Times only released small excerpts.

Senator Mike Gravel wanted it all out there. So he got a copy of it from the times, and had 4,100 pages of the Pentagon Papers read into the record. Then he had them published as a book.

Exactice · Dec 5, 2019

CaughtInThe said:
Are you really asking me if companies get away with breaking the law?

Holy crap.

What?

You are implying my opinion was naive and written by a preteen. A non answer and a direct personal attack.

I made the statement if Trump has DONE any illegal business, and the IRS has his tax returns every year and more so they have likely audited him, What crime did he commit that the IRS has been unable to find. That Warrants the hard push form SDNY for

I have no idea where that implies I am asking if companies get away with breaking the law? I asked WHAT crimes do you know that the IRS cant and has not seen with the returns and audits they do each year on Trump.

Simon W. Moon · Dec 5, 2019

chuckiechan said:
If the Republicans take the house, they will be impeaching Nancy Pelosi. Do you want their tax records public?

Idk about the rest of DP, but personally Idgaf if the financial records of every elected member of the US Govt were made public.

Simon W. Moon · Dec 5, 2019

Exactice said:
2) (of course he can afford it) BUT he is Proving a point and sticking UP for the people he Represents. NOT to be pushed over with an Unlawful request. PUBLIC citizen's DO NOT have to submit their Taxes to anyone without a LEGAL cause. Trump is NOT accuse of ANY crimes. SO why does he have to submit his taxes IF there was a crime he committed relevant to his financials and a lawful subpoena is issued, he can either comply or appeal.
WHAT CRIME warrants the disclosure of his taxes to which the IRS which has it and has direct communications with the FBI has NEVER filed a federal charge against Trump at this moment.

If the all the Courts agree with one another that the records should be turned over, how is that different than a "Legal cause"?

Exactice said:
3) Trump since 2016 (2017) Has been under CONSTANT Audit as required by the constitution.

Can you provide some background for this Constitutional requirement?
I don't recall hearing about it yet.

Exactice said:
WHAT crime is he accused of that requires his compliance?

The Courts seem to be of the opinion that your question's moot.

How does that figure in to your figuring?

Exactice · Dec 5, 2019

HenryChinaski said:
Most of the tricks that they use are legal though questionable. Equity swapping setting up shell companies and trust funds. Setting up GRATS to avoid estate taxes. These are all loopholes put in place to by the wealthy to benefit the wealthy, those from that elite sector of society. These rules aren’t for the common working man. And yes there is something fundamentally wrong when someone making $49.000 a year is paying a much higher rate, giving more of their income to the government than a billionaire.

I can completely agree and respect that more so I totally understand all you have stated. So do you lay blame to the billionaires? or do you lay blame to those that have enact such loopholes.

Secondly. Can you say that the 1%ers are evil and cruel or can you say, that say we took that 1%ers.....lets say there is 50,000 of them in the the US, 50% are scummy and just amass wealth, The Other 50% pay their taxes but are also legitimate philanthropist?

I make NO where near a 1%er, but I also understand the value of the business that I have setup. The ability to hire and pay wages of other people, giving them opportunities to either be on a W2 and enjoy their comfort or pay a "go getter" a 1099 and the sky is the limits for them.

While I may benefit from certain portions of tax law, my business entity still pays the appropriate portions and profit is then distributed OR placed in something that can benefit "as profit" interest bearing accounts or tax shelters. Is that WRONG?

Now here is the kicker, Is what I built immune to some? NO, I started from NOTHING and built it to where it is now. That means ANYONE with the same drive to build what I have "CAN" do it if they really wanted to. NO one can stop them from doing so.

fact remains though some are NOT willing to take the risk, some are NOT willing to put in the effort. So is it my fault that the benefits available to me were due to my actions rather then forcing someone to meet my demands?

Simon W. Moon · Dec 5, 2019

trixare4kids said:
Or he is simply exercising his constitutional rights. Why are you against this?

The more court battles he loses, the less likely it seems that Trump actually has the rights you say he does.

It seems if he actually had these rights, he wouldn't need so many appeals for these various cases.

Ianal tho so...

apdst · Dec 5, 2019

TheDoctorWasIn said:
Releasing tax returns is not a felony. It's not even a crime.

As for the Pentagon Papers, they were given to the Times by Daniel Ellsberg, but the Times only released small excerpts.

Senator Mike Gravel wanted it all out there. So he got a copy of it from the times, and had 4,100 pages of the Pentagon Papers read into the record. Then he had them published as a book.

Yes, it's absolutely a crime and a felony:

Congress has enacted a number of statutes that make willful violation of the disclosure rules a crime. First up is §7213 which imposes a fine up to $5,000, and up to five years’ imprisonment for any willful violation of §6103.

Disclosing President Trump's Tax Returns - An Unconventional Idea

Simon W. Moon · Dec 5, 2019

dobieg said:
...the IRS is the agency who looks at tax returns and determines if there were any crimes committed.

I think they just look at tax related crimes rather than any crimes.

Sometimes accurate tax records can provide evidence of crimes which are not tax related.

There's no reason to believe that the IRS would know about the implications of the numbers outside of the scope of taxes.
The IRS wouldn't know if the accurately reported income was the result of an illegal activity.
e.g.

If I make $50,000 selling gold I mined, and I claim that $50,000 income for tax purposes, me and the IRS are cool.
Looking at my tax records, they won't have the wherewithal to know if I mined that gold from someone else's mine.
But an LEO who knows that my mine is tapped out, would be able to look at the income from mined gold and see that something was ****y.

So, the fact that the IRS has not tried to have Trump arrested (or w/e it is they would do) is not a guarantee that no crimes were committed.
At best, it's an indication that IRS has not seen cause to take any action.

Though, I think the first action the IRS would take if they saw something ****y in someone's taxes would be to begin an audit.
IRS apparently has begun an audit of Trump.

It seems the results of the audit inform the IRS's next step. 'Cause just because something looks ****y, doesn't mean it necessarily is ****y. If the audit shows everything is decent, then the IRS closes the case. If the audit shows that the stuff that looked ****y actually IS ****y, then the IRS will probably keep the case open instead.

Exactice · Dec 5, 2019

Simon W. Moon said:
If the all the Courts agree with one another that the records should be turned over, how is that different than a "Legal cause"?

Can you provide some background for this Constitutional requirement?
I don't recall hearing about it yet.

The Courts seem to be of the opinion that your question's moot.

How does that figure in to your figuring?

Yes if All the courts agree he has to release than thats the the ruling, BUT Trump has every right to appeal to the next court. Once it reaches SCOTUS there is no where to go and if ruled to release he then has to comply BUT we are NOT there yet and he is exercising his legal rights to appeal. NOTHING Illegal

SHOOT my apologies, I made an error, my thought process was incorrect, it was NOT the constitution I stand correct, it is the IRS

3.28.3.5.3 (01-01-2020)
Mandatory Examination
Individual income tax returns for the President and Vice President are subject to mandatory examinations. See IRM 4.2.1.15, Processing Returns and Accounts of the President and Vice President.

The President and VP are under mandatory examination of their tax returns (while in office)

Thank you for catching that I have corrected.

The courts seem to be of? Yes the first lower courts do, The 9th circuit has appeals has objected to almost everything trump does and it goes to the next court and the next till it reaches the SCOTUS, remember the "Travel Ban", "DACA" is there now, "ACA repeal is going there too now"

So yes its almost guaranteed anything to do with TRUMP will be Challenged period, but a lower court for their favor. DOES NOT make it right

and DOES NOT exclude the right to appeal a ruling

Simon W. Moon · Dec 5, 2019

Perotista said:
It'll be an interesting decision. Supposedly congress and the presidency, administration are co-equal branches of government. So does one co-equal branch have oversight authority over the other, while the other doesn't have the same power over the former? I realize the oversight authority comes from the implied powers of congress although not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution.
So we shall see.

The Constitution gives Congress has the sole power to do X.
Therefore, Congress also has the power necessary to do X.

Kind of the same reasoning for why Congress can launch most any sort of an investigation they choose.
Congress has the sole power to create legislation for the country.
On it's face, it's obvious that informed legislation can be more helpful than uninformed or misinformed legislation.
Congress also has the power to investigate to gain information for legislative purposes.

Congress has the sole power to impeach.
How would things work if the body charged with impeaching lacked the means to gather information about the potentially impeachable activities?

TheDoctorWasIn · Dec 5, 2019

apdst said:
Yes, it's absolutely a crime and a felony:

You might be right. It really depends on whether members of Congress are federal employees.

apdst · Dec 5, 2019

TheDoctorWasIn said:
You might be right. It really depends on whether members of Congress are federal employees.

There ain't no "might" to it...lol

And the law doesn't only apply tofederal employees. The law specifically states that Congress can't go public with anyone's tax returns, without that person's consent.

Perotista · Dec 5, 2019

Simon W. Moon said:
The Constitution gives Congress has the sole power to do X.
Therefore, Congress also has the power necessary to do X.

Kind of the same reasoning for why Congress can launch most any sort of an investigation they choose.
Congress has the sole power to create legislation for the country.
On it's face, it's obvious that informed legislation can be more helpful than uninformed or misinformed legislation.
Congress also has the power to investigate to gain information for legislative purposes.

Congress has the sole power to impeach.
How would things work if the body charged with impeaching lacked the means to gather information about the potentially impeachable activities?

That's implied. So we'll see how the SCOTUS rules. I do think it is interesting that congress, the executive and judicial are referred to as co-equal branches, but one branch has over sight of another where the other doesn't.

So either the term or phrase co-equal is wrong, which it probably is as I don't think it is in the Constitution. What I think the SCOTUS needs to do is to define executive power. What it can be used for and what are its limits. That also isn't in the Constitution.

TheDoctorWasIn · Dec 5, 2019

apdst said:
There ain't no "might" to it...lol

And the law doesn't only apply tofederal employees. The law specifically states that Congress can't go public with anyone's tax returns, without that person's consent.

No, the law does not "specifically" say anything about members of Congress. It says "federal officers or employees".

Now, we know that members of Congress aren't "Officers" of the United States. Whether they are legally "employees", I'm not sure.

("Officers" are defined as those nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate)

Here's the law, if you would like to peruse it:

26 U.S. Code SS 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Exactice · Dec 5, 2019

Simon W. Moon said:
I think they just look at tax related crimes rather than any crimes.

Sometimes accurate tax records can provide evidence of crimes which are not tax related.

There's no reason to believe that the IRS would know about the implications of the numbers outside of the scope of taxes.
The IRS wouldn't know if the accurately reported income was the result of an illegal activity.
e.g.
If I make $50,000 selling gold I mined, and I claim that $50,000 income for tax purposes, me and the IRS are cool.
Looking at my tax records, they won't have the wherewithal to know if I mined that gold from someone else's mine.
But an LEO who knows that my mine is tapped out, would be able to look at the income from mined gold and see that something was ****y.

So, the fact that the IRS has not tried to have Trump arrested (or w/e it is they would do) is not a guarantee that no crimes were committed.
At best, it's an indication that IRS has not seen cause to take any action.

Though, I think the first action the IRS would take if they saw something ****y in someone's taxes would be to begin an audit.
IRS apparently has begun an audit of Trump.

It seems the results of the audit inform the IRS's next step. 'Cause just because something looks ****y, doesn't mean it necessarily is ****y. If the audit shows everything is decent, then the IRS closes the case. If the audit shows that the stuff that looked ****y actually IS ****y, then the IRS will probably keep the case open instead.

So I made I was posting on "principle" but now I am post on specifics.

1) To confirm we are ALL aware that the NY Prosecutor is trying to Subpoena the ACCOUNTING Firm of Trump, NOT Trump directly
2) To confirm the reason for the Subpoena was to investigate the Payments made to Stormy Daniels in relation to the supposed payoff. That the payoff may have been through an illegal business payment (etc)
3) They want access to 8 years of return due to the above.

FFS is this for real.

1) Someone mention Deutsche Bank in a prior post, Has nothing to do with that, so thats out
2) The are circumventing by subpoenaing the Accounting Firm, hell they havent actually subpoenaed TRUMP directly.
3) Their reasoning, is that Trump illegally used business funds to pay Stormy Daniels. THAT is their crime and case.....FFS

K well I see that in reality this was more useless than I thought....

1) for $130,000 which probably can be legitimized as cash (Good Luck pinning as a funneled payment through a business etc etc)
2) $130,000 might end up to be a fine at best... no criminal prosecution let alone actual "impeachment" but hey they are impeaching on what someone heard someone else thought they heard......

apdst · Dec 5, 2019

TheDoctorWasIn said:
No, the law does not "specifically" say anything about members of Congress. It says "federal officers or employees".

Now, we know that members of Congress aren't "Officers" of the United States. Whether they are legally "employees", I'm not sure.

("Officers" are defined as those nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate)

Here's the law, if you would like to peruse it:

26 U.S. Code SS 7213 - Unauthorized disclosure of information | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Show us where the law, any law excludes members of Congress. I'll save you some time: there is no law that says that.

TheDoctorWasIn · Dec 5, 2019

apdst said:
Show us where the law, any law excludes members of Congress. I'll save you some time: there is no law that says that.

There are literally hundreds of laws that Congress is exempt from.

OSHA is a big one.

But that's not the point. In this case, Congress isn't exempt from the law, it's just not clear if they're covered by the law.

If I found Donald Trump's tax returns on the subway, I could release them to the public with no fear of being arrested - because I'm not a federal officer or employee.

CaughtInThe · Dec 5, 2019

Exactice said:
What?

You are implying my opinion was naive and written by a preteen. A non answer and a direct personal attack.

I made the statement if Trump has DONE any illegal business, and the IRS has his tax returns every year and more so they have likely audited him, What crime did he commit that the IRS has been unable to find. That Warrants the hard push form SDNY for

I have no idea where that implies I am asking if companies get away with breaking the law? I asked WHAT crimes do you know that the IRS cant and has not seen with the returns and audits they do each year on Trump.

Man, that is so naive. What you're basically arguing is that mafia guys, who have been audited by our government for decades, can't get away with illegal activities because they've been audited.

That's the craziest crap I've ever heard. Even Toyota has had a million class action lawsuit against them way after the fact. And drug companies too.

And a bunch of companies get away with illegal activities forever and we never know about it until some dude writes a book on his deathbed.

The childlike innocence is crazy in this argument.

ocean515 · Dec 5, 2019

JacksinPA said:
Trump asks Supreme Court to shield financial records from House Democrats | TheHill

President Trump has asked the Supreme Court to shield his financial records from the Democratic-led House Oversight and Reform Committee, in the latest case to bring questions over separation of powers to the justices.

The case marks the second time Trump has appealed to the high court to prevent the disclosure of financial documents and sets the stage for a potentially groundbreaking ruling on the extent of congressional oversight authority and presidential power.
===============================================
The second time? Looks like he has something he wants to keep hidden from the Democrats.

The Constitutional rights of citizens has no place in the world the socialist progressives dream of putting all citizens under.