• 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

Leftists have no respect for any man who does not support legalizing anal sex between men and teaching school kids how to enjoy it.
Inorite?
Anal sex is like so totally the govt's business.
It should not only be illegal, it should be heavily taxed as well.
 
Drivel? I guess you never heard Mueller had Manafort arrested for a crime he committed years before he became involved with Trump? I suppose you have no idea who Tony Podesta is and what he did that Mueller ignored?
Manafort was also arrested for crimes which continued through 2017.
:shrug:
 
Due process refers to the steps associated with making something happen.
Due process is not a reflection on the motivations of those who perform those steps.
Due process can be carried out by folks who have corrupt motivations.
I think due process goes a little further than that. It requires a legal justification as well. So, the concept that corrupt motivations can comprise due process is an oxymoron.
Simon W. Moon said:
It seems likely that the rigmarole around the steps a Congressional committee must take to make this sort of an official request could count as due process.

It's therefore likely that the request is not an unreasonable one.
Explain how what congress is doing meets the requirements of the 4th Amendment. Does the Amendment say "this amendment does not apply if Congress wants to harass a political opponent without just probably cause?

Simon W. Moon said:
Do you find it odd that the OLC did not mention the Fourth Amendment in this statement?

It seems that if this easy to understand objection held water that they would have brought it up.
What statement?
Simon W Moon said:
Maybe they just overlooked it?
Maybe we should send them an email to let them know they forgot to object on these grounds?
You may be wrong.
 
Screenshot-2019-06-15-Neal-Katyal-neal-katyal-Twitter.png
 
His "base" voters won't like it.
I'm guessing his "base" didn't like it when he caved and said he would release them.
Since, his "base" weren't the ones and his opposition were the ones asking for him to release his taxes, I rather doubt they care about it today.
I think, the harm is not what can actually be found in his taxes.
But, the harm his resistors may cause, that I stated in my post you responded to "what I suspect will follow is the "by any means necessary tactic" will come into play"
You know the kind of tactic used by his resistors using the dirty politics kind of :bs:spin: they use on him and his supporters.
Roseann:)
The harm of releasing Trump's taxes is twofold:
  • Trump supporters don't like it
  • it may make his opposition play dirty tricks

These potential harms are sufficient to justify curtailing Congress's Constitutional authorities?
 
What harm comes to Trump if his tax info were released?

What harm to any American if Congress decides to award itself the privilege of taking a deep peek into any taxpayer's return they choose for whatever reason?
Should any or every American expect his financials to be subject to public disclosure on the whim of any politician?
 
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.
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.

The democrats in Congress have the right to spy on or invade the privacy of any and every American for the purpose of seeing if its laws are working? What kind of crap attempt at logic is that?
 
Does the Amendment say "this amendment does not apply if Congress wants to harass a political opponent without just probably cause?
It actually doesn't address the relationship between the Legislative and Executive Branches.

Here's a link for if you decide to read it
Fourth Amendment - Google Search

What statement?
The statement which is the subject of this thread.
It's linked in the OP.

Here's a link for if you decide to read it

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

They don't seem to mention the Fourth Amendment angle.
Maybe Trump hired some crappy lawyers who just forgot to bring it up?
 
What is the official explanation for the different treatment?

Is there one?

Democrats do not explain their unequal application of laws - throwing the book at republicans for infractions while giving immunity and forgiveness to democrats for the same infractions. Hillary destroyed tens of thousands of documents but Comey forgave her even while admitting her guilt. By contrast, Nixon lost his job and was run out of town by democrats for destroying just a few documents.
 
So, you're saying that they will not be indicted during Trump's presidency?
That sounds likely.

If they are never indicted, is that a failing of Trump's DoJ?
Or would it mean that you may have misunderstood the situation?

Both men were investigated during the Obama administration for the crimes Manafort was later charged with under Mueller. Obama officials did not indict either man. Mueller resurrected the issue with Manafort just because he needed to nail Trump associates on something, no matter how long ago or insignificant.
 
What harm comes to Trump if his tax info were released?

What harm comes to anyone if democrats invade their privacy? I assume in the new democrat socialist world order no citizen will have the right of privacy from the brutal oligarchs ruling over them with a rod of iron.
 
What harm to any American if Congress decides to award itself the privilege of taking a deep peek into any taxpayer's return they choose for whatever reason?
Should any or every American expect his financials to be subject to public disclosure on the whim of any politician?

It cannot be for "whatever reason" it must be for e reason on which legislation could be had.

From what I can tell, it takes a committee of Congresscritters.
And the Congress critters must do it in a very specific manner so they don't end up like they did in the Watkins case everyone in this thread is discussing where Congress was too vague on some crucial matters.

So, it wouldn't be a case of "any politician's whim", no.
It would take a politician who could get a committee to come together, follow certain rules, and make the request.
 
Are you lost? This thread is about Trump and his tax returns and that's the subject of my post.

Not lost. I was referencing the tax return statement he made while he was a Candidate running for President.

Reworded for clarification follows....

:attn1: Whataboutism Alert

Candidate Trump didn't lie when he said he stated he planned to release his tax return after an audit was finished under the advice of his Tax Lawyer.

After, becoming President he had an epiphany and changed his mind following in the footsteps of some of his Presidential predecessors.

Do you know the status of that audit?

Roseann:)
 
Not lost. I was referencing the tax return statement he made while he was a Candidate running for President.

Reworded for clarification follows....

:attn1: Whataboutism Alert

Candidate Trump didn't lie when he said he stated he planned to release his tax return after an audit was finished under the advice of his Tax Lawyer.

After, becoming President he had an epiphany and changed his mind following in the footsteps of some of his Presidential predecessors.

Do you know the status of that audit?

Roseann:)


You're confused. It can't be whataboutism when it's completely and totally on topic and subject of the OP.
 
The democrats in Congress have the right to spy on or invade the privacy of any and every American for the purpose of seeing if its laws are working?
It may not be a right so much as a power. (idk)
Congressional investigatory powers reside in both houses of Congress and are not dependent on party affiliation.
All Congresscritters — even the Republican ones — have the potential to exercise Congress's investigatory powers.

What kind of crap attempt at logic is that?
It's not actually logic.
Logic is more about specific sorts of thought processes.

It's just a statement about how our govt works.
[ Though your version is a tad hyperbolic. ]
 
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.

That is exactly what a crooked partisan democrat hack activist judge will do also, if given half a chance. Look at how many judges crookedly jumped onto the democrat Trump/Russian conspiracy theory band wagon and gave lying dirty democrats the green light to spy on everyone associated with Trump in a mob democrat effort to give Hillary the win in 2016.
 
What harm to any American if Congress decides to award itself the privilege of taking a deep peek into any taxpayer's return they choose for whatever reason?
Should any or every American expect his financials to be subject to public disclosure on the whim of any politician?

They have had that power for almost 100 years


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
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.

Democrats in the House see themselves as supreme judges responsible for overseeing and either approving or disapproving Trump's every move.
 
Both men were investigated during the Obama administration for the crimes Manafort was later charged with under Mueller. Obama officials did not indict either man. Mueller resurrected the issue with Manafort just because he needed to nail Trump associates on something, no matter how long ago or insignificant.
It took the Trump Admin to bring Manafort to justice.

When will the Trump Admin bring Podesta to justice?

Are Trump_DoJ ignorant of Podesta's crimes?
Are they slacking?
Are they fools and patsies?

When will justice come for Podesta and the Wicked Witch Killary?
If not during the Trump Admin, then when?
 
That is exactly what a crooked partisan democrat hack activist judge will do also, if given half a chance. Look at how many judges crookedly jumped onto the democrat Trump/Russian conspiracy theory band wagon and gave lying dirty democrats the green light to spy on everyone associated with Trump in a mob democrat effort to give Hillary the win in 2016.
Somebody needs a nap.
 
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.

Should Trump release all private records of every congressman he deems a security risk to the US? Is that what it means to be transparent? Is there any reason he should not have the power to do that for the good of the country? If so, then maybe he should also share some of his financials with his sworn enemies who seem deadly determined to get their hands on anything they can use to destroy him.
 
Trump promised to release them.


Was he lying?

He said he would release them when the audit was finished on the advice of a Tax Lawyer.

Has that audit reached completion?

Answer your own question based on the information you know about the status of the audit.

Roseann:)
 

No where in your provision does it state Congress is recused from any due process or any legislative purpose with unlimited subpoena powers. However, it does clearly state:

11. It is to be presumed that the object of the Senate in ordering such an investigation is to aid it in legislating. P. 273 U. S. 178.

So that pretty much clears the air on needing a legislative purpose. I actually already knew that.

All legislative request for tax returns must have a legitimate legislative purpose. All legislative investigations must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Watkins vs The Untied States 354 U.S.

The constitution does not grant Congress a standalone investigation power. Congress can conduct investigations only to further some other legislative power enumerated in the constitution. Kilbourn vs Thompson 103 U.S.

The Supreme court ruled on and told the Un-American Activities Committee decades ago, There is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure, Especially not the private affairs of individuals and Congress cannot use investigations to exercise the functions of the executive or act like a law enforcement or trail agency.
Watkins vs The Untied States 354 U.S.

Now I am sure Nadler will push back but these arguments have been ruled on already and have been adjudicated by the Supreme court. Unless Nadler can come up with a legislative purpose he isn't going to get the SCOTUS to reverse there precedents.
 
No where in your provision does it state Congress is recused from any due process or any legislative purpose with unlimited subpoena powers. However, it does clearly state:
11. It is to be presumed that the object of the Senate in ordering such an investigation is to aid it in legislating. P. 273 U. S. 178.
So that pretty much clears the air on needing a legislative purpose. I actually already knew that.
All legislative request for tax returns must have a legitimate legislative purpose. All legislative investigations must be related to, and in furtherance of, a legitimate task of the Congress. Watkins vs The Untied States 354 U.S.
The constitution does not grant Congress a standalone investigation power. Congress can conduct investigations only to further some other legislative power enumerated in the constitution. Kilbourn vs Thompson 103 U.S.
The Supreme court ruled on and told the Un-American Activities Committee decades ago, There is no congressional power to expose for the sake of exposure, Especially not the private affairs of individuals and Congress cannot use investigations to exercise the functions of the executive or act like a law enforcement or trail agency.
Watkins vs The Untied States 354 U.S.
Now I am sure Nadler will push back but these arguments have been ruled on already and have been adjudicated by the Supreme court. Unless Nadler can come up with a legislative purpose he isn't going to get the SCOTUS to reverse there precedents.
In your research, who did you determine it is who decides what is or is not a legitimate legislative purpose?
 
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.

I have never seen such determination by politicians of one party seek to cloak their non-stop witch hunt attacks on the president of the other party in the mantle of some supposed constitutional mandate.
 
Back
Top Bottom