• 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!

OLC determines that Trump's tax returns DO NOT have to be disclosed

Prefering the victim card over personal responsibility is common these days.

I know!!! And the Dems are the Masters at using the victim card along with all those other cards in their deck to gain political advantage.

Roseann:)
 
Here's the part I like -
I’m guessing the part you’re really gonna hate is when a federal judge orders the Treasury Department to turn over the subpoenaed records.
 
Constitutional Authority

Congress's investigatory powers are rooted in the Constitution.
By default, Congress gets to decide what matters are fit for Congress to investigate.
The test the Courts have created to see if Congress is overstepping is whether or not legislation could be had on a subject.
The Courts have ruled that the existence or possible existence of an ulterior motive on the part of the Legislative Branch is superfluous.
The critical question is whether or not legislation could be had.




4th Amendment







Congress's whole rigmarole is likely reasonable due process.
( And therefore is not an unreasonable search. )

How many other due processes require a pack Congresscritter's to agree to act?

While congress does have legislative powers and investigative powers related to both legislation and oversight of the other branches of government that DOES NOT make them a superior branch of government. Their investigative and legislative powers are restricted by the Constitution and can not extend into areas expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
 
I’m guessing the part you’re really gonna hate is when a federal judge orders the Treasury Department to turn over the subpoenaed records.

I have no doubt that someone somewhere can find a federal judge to write that opinion. If that happens the case will go to SCOTUS and will likely be a 9-0 decision for the administration.
 
And why do you suppose his tax returns would smear him?

Reread what was written by the poster.

No supposition was written in the statement made concerning the posters thinking that the taxes would smear Trump.

The statement only addresses the hope of those who want his tax returns... that being finding something/anything they can use "to try to smear him and spread gossip".

Roseann:)
 
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1173756/download



Here's the part I like -



The request "raised a serious risk of abuse". Damned straight it did.

Opinions | OLC | Department of Justice

Why are you on the side of corruption? The reason candidates and politicians have released their tax returns is to fight corruption. Trump was supposed to clean up the swamp. I don't understand how you can support him hiding his tax returns after he promised to clean up the swamp.

It seems like you just mindlessly support Trump regardless of what he does.
 
https://www.justice.gov/olc/file/1173756/download



Here's the part I like -



The request "raised a serious risk of abuse". Damned straight it did.

Opinions | OLC | Department of Justice

Others may have brought this up and I apologize for not reading all the thread before posting, but there is a fundamental principle at play here.

So far the Democrats are on a fishing expedition to find something, ANYTHING, they can use to accuse President Trump of a crime. The FBI 7th Floor failed. Mueller failed. Bipartisan committees in the House and Senate have failed. The leftwing media has hailed. So now they are hoping to find something, ANYTHING, in Trump's tax returns they can use.

In short they weaponized the FBI, congressional committees, an independent investigation, and have used the media for the purpose of taking down a sitting President of the United States. Now they want to weaponize the IRS, something that has been tried in the past and the Supreme Court stepped in to stop.

. . .(in) Watkins v. US, a 1957 case brought against the House Un-American Activities Committee during the "Red Scare." Labor organizer John Watkins was cited for contempt of Congress for refusing to provide information not pertinent to a legitimate investigative purpose. Watkins sued and eventually the Supreme Court ruled 6-1 in his favor, a ruling hailed at the time as a major limitation on Congress' reckless use of its investigative authority.

Former Chief Justice Earl Warren's opinion from that time speaks to some of the issues in contention in the current fight. "Congress has no general authority to expose the private affairs of individuals," Warren concluded, "without justification in terms of the functions of Congress." He specifically cited a need to demonstrate a "legislative purpose," noting that "t cannot simply be assumed that every congressional investigation is justified by a public need that overbalances any private rights affected."

The same statute cited by Neal makes clear the private nature of tax returns. No one other than the taxpayer himself or his duly designated agents, custodians, or heirs can disclose that information unless required for specific legal investigations or to review specific issues of administration by the IRS. Even in the law's whistleblower section, the release of taxpayer information to anyone else has to relate to "misconduct, maladministration, or taxpayer abuse" by the government, not the taxpayer himself. . .


And this essay closed with:

. . .When politicians voluntarily release their tax returns, this has value in transparency and character assessment. And I'm not saying voters can't assume the worst about political candidates who refuse to follow this tradition. Voters have the authority to make this criteria as important or unimportant as they see fit, and punish those who fail to meet those standards at the ballot box. We do not need to make the good compulsory, however, nor allow the same politicians the authority to access private information simply because they won an election, regardless of which branch of government they serve. For all of our sakes, we should leave it at that.
The dangerous precedent of Congress demanding Trump's tax returns

The Democrats no doubt feel frustrated that they aren't allowed to dig anywhere they want to find dirt on the President. But when the Republicans are in power and the shoe is on the other foot, they will no doubt appreciate checks and balances that prevent them from weaponizing the government against somebody for no other reason than they hate him/her.
 
While congress does have legislative powers and investigative powers related to both legislation and oversight of the other branches of government that DOES NOT make them a superior branch of government. Their investigative and legislative powers are restricted by the Constitution and can not extend into areas expressly prohibited by the Constitution.
Sure.
But are you making the case that the Constitution excludes Trump's taxes from the scope of legislative investigation?
 
I have no doubt that someone somewhere can find a federal judge to write that opinion. If that happens the case will go to SCOTUS and will likely be a 9-0 decision for the administration.

Based on any or all of these arguments?

  1. Congress only wants the material to use for harassing the President, degrading him in the eyes of the country.
  2. Congress lacks the powers to investigate the President, except during impeachment.
  3. Allowing Congress to do this would establish a precedent dangerous and embarrassing to all future presidents of any party.
 
People voted for Trump because he promised them to disclose his tax returns one day?!?

:lamo

That is the kind of thinking that comes to mind when someone spends to much time in an utopian la la fantasy dreamworld instead of the real world.

Roseann:)
 
Iirc President Buchanan objected to the investigatory powers of Congress on the basis that Congress was only using the powers to "[furnish] material for harassing [the President], degrading him in the eyes of the country..."
Does that sound familiar?

Uh, not really. You are trying to confer powers of Congress in 1860 when the IRS didn't exist to 2019 after legislation was created just for the purpose of protecting individual privacy rights due to the IRS collection of tax records and saying its legal to ignore those laws for the design of harassing a sitting president in 2019?

Nice try but no banana
 
Uh, not really. You are trying to confer powers of Congress in 1860 when the IRS didn't exist to 2019 after legislation was created just for the purpose of protecting individual privacy rights due to the IRS collection of tax records and saying its legal to ignore those laws for the design of harassing a sitting president in 2019?
Nice try but no banana
Congress's investigatory powers are rooted in the Constitution.
It's likely that when laws and the Constitutions conflict [which doesn't seem to be the case here] that the Courts would rule in favor of the Constitution over a law. ymmv

The Courts have already ruled that the existence of the possibility that legislation "could be had" on a subject is the standard to be used even when the objection is that the design is to harass a sitting president.

:shrug:
 
You asked me if the JCF was violating the 4th amendment by looking at tax information. Since the JCF was formed to institute tax laws, I am not sure how this is even a discussion. I provided you with the responsibilities of the JCF.

Assisting Congressional tax-writing committees and Members of Congress with development and analysis of legislative proposals;
Preparing official revenue estimates of all tax legislation considered by the Congress;
Drafting legislative histories for tax-related bills; and
Investigating various aspects of the Federal tax system.

If you can't divine the reasons why the JCF isn't violating the 4th amendment due to their actual job description, I don't really know what to tell you. It like asking the same question about the IRS.

The house ways and means committee assigns five members to the JCT. The same house ways and means committee that is requesting the presidents tax returns.
 
It would be completely unconstitutional for congress to legislate themselves into a situation where they become a SUPERIOR branch of government to the Executive or Judicial branches and that is EXACTLY what such a broad interpretation of "legislative intent" does.

Not even close.... will make an amusing argument if that's the defense in court...
 
The nature of the demand from Neal is that of a "search". His purpose is, purportedly, to discover failings in the IRS audit process but his request is ONLY for Trump's records and that pretty much proves that his stated purpose and his actual intent are two different things. No matter how much you guys hate Trump you really need to remember that all the stuff you do to hurt him can also be used against the rest of the population and those of us in "the rest of the population" aren't about to allow you to blow a USS Cole sized hole in the Constitution.



It truly baffles me that many do not understand that statement in bold. Or, if understood that there still would be a willingness to take the risk just to hurt Trump.

Roseann:)
 
While congress does have legislative powers and investigative powers related to both legislation and oversight of the other branches of government that DOES NOT make them a superior branch of government. Their investigative and legislative powers are restricted by the Constitution and can not extend into areas expressly prohibited by the Constitution.

How is access to tax records unconstitutional? Are you aware of why the 1924 law was passed? Teapot Dome ring a bell?
 
No, legal opinion is not evidence. It is just that, and for true resolution, the courts will decide.

I asked for evidence that what you say is true: that the only reason Ways & Means wants the information is to make it public. Please provide evidence for the claim you made in this regards.

I never said legal opinion was evidence. The Congress has asserted a right to something, that is their interpretation of the law in question. The OLC has countered that assertion by recognizing the law may be applicable under certain circumstances, then offering cause to refuse it's applicability in the specific circumstance. THAT is what the Court will be deciding.

Evidence provided was the past (bad) acts of the person demanding the information, and the legal opinion to be decided by the court is if the Congress is actually pursuing a valid legislative function or merely a political vendetta.
 
The thing is the Courts have already established that the Legislative Branch gets to decide what is or is not a valid legislative purpose.
While you and I are free to disagree withe the Legislature, our recourse only comes once every couple of years.

I am not familiar with that ruling. Could you provide a link for educational purposes.

When the Constitution gave the Legislative Branch the power to legislate and levy taxes.

The LB has a duty to see that their laws are working as intended.
If the laws are not working as intended, the LB has a duty to change the laws.

We have a branch just for that exact purpose. The Joint Committee on Finance. (JFC) Their duties include:

Assisting Congressional tax-writing committees and Members of Congress with development and analysis of legislative proposals;
Preparing official revenue estimates of all tax legislation considered by the Congress;
Drafting legislative histories for tax-related bills; and
Investigating various aspects of the Federal tax system.

Now the Ways & Means committee wants to insure the IRS is following federal law and for that purpose they only need Trumps tax returns for the last 6 years.

As I am not convinced the Ways and Means committee can decide on what is and what isn't a legislative purpose, I am not convinced they can simply ignore the 4th amendment or existing rights to privacy just for a political purpose of haranguing a President on a document that is not required to be produced by any presidential candidate.

Its going to be interesting though but here is the scary part. I am sure you remember during the Obama years when Democrats decided to change the Senate rules from 60% to 50% to confirm a SCOTUS and how it came back to bite them in the ass during the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh confirmations. Are we not opening the very same door just for a quick fix because we hate a president.

Isn't it obvious to most (If successful) this is going to be used by EVERY sitting gavel holder on the committee from here to eternity. We are comfortable with allowing these politicians the power to just supersede any existing privacy laws so they can get dirt or inside information on any opponent?

And just for s***s and giggles, What do they expect to find in a few thousand pages of Trump Org tax return? Do they not know that his taxes are prepared by some of the nations largest accounting firms who are federally liable for any fraud or mistake in those returns.

Do they not know that the president is not subject to any conflict of interest law simply by virtue of his office. Title 18 Section 208 of the United States Code is the relevant provision concerning conflicts of interest of officers and employees of the executive branch.

Now, In this haste to try and stop Trump and resend his constitutional executive authority granted by we the people, you have people like Elisabeth Warren providing new legislation to remove the constitutional right governing conflict of interest. Democrats are falling all over themselves again trying to change the emoluments clause and are actively seeking to eliminate as much executive power as they can from the office.

Pretty soon we won't need a President any more. Without the executive powers provided to that office it would be a waste of time to have the office. But as per usual. Democrats don't have any rear view mirrors and as long as Trump is in office they were rip apart anything they can find in the constitution that supports Trump.

Personally, I think its pretty clear Trump isn't going to be in office for the next 60 years but this kind of power being discussed because we don't like Trump is not responsible or positive for the US. Its a dangerous path and not even a consideration. Where will these committee members stop, no matter who is in power.



It's possible that the ScotUS will rule on it.

It's more probable that the issue will be pursued to the ScotUS level.

Idk if the ScotUS will decide to hear the case or not.
They often skip cases which are straightforward and the lower courts' ruling seem in accord with the law.
However, the PotUS is involved.
So, the ScotUS may decide to get involved and make a statement.



I hope you have a good time while you are away.
☺[/QUOTE]
 
I know!!! And the Dems are the Masters at using the victim card along with all those other cards in their deck to gain political advantage.

Roseann:)



cheer1.jpg
 
The house ways and means committee assigns five members to the JCT. The same house ways and means committee that is requesting the presidents tax returns.

Of which they are now trying to state they need to see if the IRS is following the laws properly and need 6 years of Trump returns to verify that fact.

Not going to happen.
 
Congress's investigatory powers are rooted in the Constitution.
It's likely that when laws and the Constitutions conflict that the Courts would rule in favor of the Constitution over a law. ymmv

So it would seem the right of the people (According to the 4th amendment) 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 would apply here.
 
I have no doubt that someone somewhere can find a federal judge to write that opinion. If that happens the case will go to SCOTUS and will likely be a 9-0 decision for the administration.
And you base that opinion on what, your expert legal knowledge? :lamo
 
That's the rub though.

By default, the Legislative Branch are the one who get to decide if something is a legitimate legislative purpose.
The Courts have said that they will give the Legislative Branch the benefit of the doubt on these matters.

So, the PotUS would have not show that there could be no legitimate legislative purpose.
Showing that there are additional purposes, e.g. purely political purposes is insufficient.

It's a very high bar to demonstrate that there is no possibility legislation could be had on an issue.

Showing that there are political purposes at play as well is insufficient to cause the courts to intervene on the president's behalf.
It was already tried a while back in the 19th century iirc

I said, I found it interesting. I'm willing to take a wait and see attitude to see the end results.

The end results is what counts wouldn't you agree.

Roseann:)
 
Back
Top Bottom